Periods Meeting Quotes

@spendius,

"Completely" is ridiculous in " a completely natural fashion" as well. How on earth can some thing be somewhat natural? There can be "a completely stupid idiot" as being further out than just an ordinary, everyday idiot such as Veblen claimed were being born at the rate of one per minute. About 100 years ago I mean.

"A completely natural fashion" can only be what the stripper ended up in at the climax of her performance. Sprawled across a bale of straw with a birdsong soundtrack fading as the curtains are drawn over the sorry scene.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It works something like this for the sharp-suited Professor of whatever the silly sod is professor of.

He has this simple idea. Right? It's based on a personal experience. Fancied himself with the English Language and found Fowler beyond him. So he sets out asserting that this experience he's had is a universal one and strikes a chord with those who also found grammar a bit difficult. A few famous persons are brought forth as examples, unasked, to boost the cred plus a bit of brushwork out of the pot of what is euphemistically known as "latest research". Get the ball rolling with an article or two and an appointment and a book, no less. Interviews follow with extracts from the book and the articles mentioning the title of the appointment as often as is decent and once a bit of Media gets a gurgling and vomiting it and pandering to the masses who haven't even heard of Fowler but are convinced that doing your own thing is better than buttered crumpet and--hey-presto--your little simple idea is having the time of its life at the expense of the hard working families from sea to shining sea and you end up looking like a veteran MC in a end-of-the-pier beauty contest.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

He ought really to have pursued it further, because the only way around the argument is to so narrowly define “prescriptive” as to be prescriptive about it.

Of course 'prescriptive' is narrowly defined, Frank. It has a meaning that is specific to the study of language. This isn't any different than how every other scientific discipline uses words to define something, you want to label it 'narrow', but it really only specific - a meaning that is specific to the study of language.

1 a : the establishment of a claim of title to something under common law usually by use and enjoyment for a period fixed by statute

Nope, that's not it.

1 b : the right or title acquired under common law by such possession

That's not either.

2
: the process of making claim to something by long use and enjoyment

Neither is that one.

3
: the action of laying down authoritative rules or directions

Nope.

4
a : a written direction for a therapeutic or corrective agent; specifically : one for the preparation and use of a medicine

Un-un.

b : a prescribed medicine

Naaaaah.

c : something (as a recommendation) resembling a doctor's prescription <prescriptions for economic recovery>

You get my meaning, I'm sure. You have noted how a word can have a meaning specific to one area of study, life, sport, ... .

Robert didn't pursue it because he didn't have a firm enough grasp of the concepts.

Quote:

But doing it the way you have been doing it, JTT, IS being descriptive...and IS telling people what they must do to conform to your rules of grammatical conduct (usage and commentary on grammar)

And Frank, not to be unkind, but you are worse than Robert.

Yes, you are right [though I'm sure you didn't intend to be] I've said many times, tried to explain more - I am being DESCRIPTIVE, just as you have noted above.

Quote:

You essentially are telling others that they must not question grammatical prescriptions...prescribing, in effect, that doing so is "wrong."

Then why are we having this discussion at all, Frank. I have been telling everyone who will listen that they MUST "question grammatical prescriptions" [Not "must not"] because they are empty rules, concocted rules, made up rules that lack any substance, that do NOT reflect the traditions of language.

Let's stay on this particular section for a bit, Frank, because, seriously, [and again, I'm not being unkind] you are terribly confused on the whole picture. It's absolutely essential that you have a firm grasp of the terminology. These remarks, above, show that you do not. When you understand the concepts we can continue.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

So, (to use Joe from Chicago's pet peeve)

I don't believe that 'so' is the same 'so', Aidan. That's a legitimate, in the sense of long standing in language, use of 'so' that is

Quote:

used for starting a statement in a conversation SPOKEN
a.
used for continuing a conversation, especially for starting a new subject or starting to ask a question
So, let's get down to business.
So, what do you suggest we do next?

b.
used for introducing a question in order to make sure that what you have heard or noticed is correct
So, you've finally decided to come with us?

==================================

ORIGINAL SENTENCE: And then there'd even be more nuance and differentiation depending upon if your speaker was white, black, hispanic, a debutante, etc., etc.

Quote:

So, (to use Joe from Chicago's pet peeve) as it's not subjunctive, but conditional- would it still be correct if I were/was to use 'were' as in:

And then there'd even be more nuance and differentiation depending upon if your speaker 'were' white, black, hispanic, a debutante, etc., etc.'?

I mean, I'm just clarifying in terms of 'rules'. I know it sounds fine to my ear either way. I think I could have used 'was', 'were', 'is' and everyone would have known what I meant.

I suggest that the reality of the situation, which is what I'm pretty sure you intended, caused your grammar parser to choose the appropriate word for the situation. Do you think the situation as envisioned represents a real possibility or an unlikely to impossible one?

Quote:

I guess what I'm asking is if the same 'rules' a prescriptivist would apply to the subjunctive also apply to the conditional?

This is a different kettle of fish. Let's stick with part one, above, first. Then we can come back to this related issue.

Notice how everyone is off topic. Smile

I guess what I'm asking is if the same 'rules' a prescriptivist would apply to the subjunctive also apply to the conditional?[/quote]

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Izzy: WHAT is the function of a conjunction ?????

Why ask Izzy, Dave? You're the one who is advancing this particular idiocy, in complete defiance of reality, and tradition, you ole liberal you.

You explain to us what the function of a conjunction is.

------------------

OmSig will be back when pigs fly.

See,

Starting a sentence with a conjunction

http://able2know.org/topic/176229-1#top

wherein OmSigDavid promised twice to "get back to me" to mount his defense for his inanity.

Again, surprise, surprise, he was a no show.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendi, you're talking to yourself. You do this, speak in volumes, when you have nothing to say.

1 Reply

@JTT,

What does that mean? You could win an argument that geese are black with such infantile remarks. You're supposed to address my posts rather than claim, prescriptively, that I said nothing. Why not admit you are stumped and get honest for a change? Accusing others of dishonesty says nothing about your honesty.

Fowler says this on "revival" subjunctives--

Quote:

. . . , there are no uses of the subjunctive to which poets, and poetic writers, may not resort if it suits them.

A prescriptivist wouldn't say that. You said Fowler was a prescriptivist on the basis of hearsay and not on the basis of having studied his justly famous book which every serious writer has on his shelves.

Your prose is as prescriptive as a train time-table. There is not the slightest sign of a poetic sensibility. It is not even attempted. It's just arrogant, finger-wagging didacticism. Your anti-prescriptivism is a mere affectation designed to draw attention to yourself in a milieux that knows no better.

"dirging a past of bloody altars" is off your comprehension scale and it is sublime. It pins Nunberg to the wall along with all his foolish followers.

Even your vocabulary is poverty stricken.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Izzy: WHAT is the function of a conjunction ?????

JTT wrote:

Why ask Izzy, Dave?

Because I look upon him as a friend & I discuss things with him.
This is a discussion forum.

JTT wrote:

You're the one who is advancing this particular idiocy,
in complete defiance of reality, and tradition, you ole liberal you.

U have no end of proving n re-proving your mental sickness, J.

JTT wrote:

You explain to us what the function of a conjunction is.

(Redundantly, David answers the crazy man): it is to stick words together, like glue.

------------------

JTT wrote:

OmSig will be back when pigs fly.

See,

Starting a sentence with a conjunction

http://able2know.org/topic/176229-1#top

wherein OmSigDavid promised twice to "get back to me" to mount his defense for his inanity.

Again, surprise, surprise, he was a no show.

I have continually been a YES show, since then very ofen interacting with u, J.
I post in this forum almost every day, except when I 'm out of town.

David

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

It pins Nunberg to the wall along with all his foolish followers.

By followers I meant, as it relates to the Joyce quote, anybody who tries to parlez an average education into fame and fortune simply by applying a gift of the gab, or the capacity to absorb a series of minor humiliations, or getting a classy tailor and hairdresser, or all three, plus a few others I could mention if it wasn't that I was trying to prevent this post going on too long in case any interested A2kers have short attention spans, using some ancient discarded notion and giving it a superficially modern patina of very diluted bullshit, thinly spread, and which plays well with the silent majority bursting with things to say and eager to learn the appropriate lines in order to say them.

Or, in fast forward, "dirging a past of bloody altars".

As the officer in charge of the firing squad said to M. Derrida, "it means we are going to shoot you."

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
He ought really to have pursued it further, because the only way around the argument is to so narrowly define “prescriptive” as to be prescriptive about it.

Of course 'prescriptive' is narrowly defined, Frank. It has a meaning that is specific to the study of language. This isn't any different than how every other scientific discipline uses words to define something, you want to label it 'narrow', but it really only specific - a meaning that is specific to the study of language.

1 a : the establishment of a claim of title to something under common law usually by use and enjoyment for a period fixed by statute

Nope, that's not it.

1 b : the right or title acquired under common law by such possession

That's not either.

2
: the process of making claim to something by long use and enjoyment

Neither is that one.

3
: the action of laying down authoritative rules or directions

Nope.

4
a : a written direction for a therapeutic or corrective agent; specifically : one for the preparation and use of a medicine

Un-un.

b : a prescribed medicine

Naaaaah.

c : something (as a recommendation) resembling a doctor's prescription <prescriptions for economic recovery>

You get my meaning, I'm sure. You have noted how a word can have a meaning specific to one area of study, life, sport, ... .

Robert didn't pursue it because he didn't have a firm enough grasp of the concepts.

JTT, that was an interesting exposition, but not especially necessary...and it arrived at an unwarranted (and in my opinion, erroneous) conclusion. I am not sure why Robert did not pursue it, but I suspect it has more to do with the way you take to discussion than with his grasp of the subject. I’ve had many, many discussions with Robert over the last 10 – 12 years and he has always been able to handle himself very ably.

Under any circumstances, you are being prescriptive in your descriptive orientation. You are prescribing what is or is not acceptable...and you most assuredly are suggesting, in a prescriptive way, that to accept prescriptive norms of grammar to the point of calling deviations from those norms to the attention of people deviating from them...is somehow wrong (a lie or falsehood spreading). That is, in essence, being prescriptive...although I doubt I will ever convince you of that. No problem.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
But doing it the way you have been doing it, JTT, IS being descriptive...and IS telling people what they must do to conform to your rules of grammatical conduct (usage and commentary on grammar)

And Frank, not to be unkind, but you are worse than Robert.

Yes, you are right [though I'm sure you didn't intend to be] I've said many times, tried to explain more - I am being DESCRIPTIVE, just as you have noted above.

You are making great progress in being civil, JTT, but obviously you still have further to travel before actually getting there. The regular digs are not necessary…and add nothing of value to your lessons and corrections. Try to lose them.

I acknowledge without reservation that you definitely are much better at describing grammar than I…and perhaps Robert is better at it than I also. Not sure of your point, but to term it “worse than” really is settling for second-best in the discussion wording department.

Further, although I am less a scholar in this area than you, to treat my comments and thoughts with the condescension you are...is arbitrary and gratuitous. Lose that also.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
You essentially are telling others that they must not question grammatical prescriptions...prescribing, in effect, that doing so is "wrong."

Then why are we having this discussion at all, Frank. I have been telling everyone who will listen that they MUST "question grammatical prescriptions" [Not "must not"]

Horrible wording on my part…and either an inadvertent mistake or evidence that I am an ignorant jerk unworthy of engagement in discussion with someone as learned as you.

I know which I would choose, but I will accept that you can make a decision on that for yourself.

Quote:

…because they are empty rules, concocted rules, made up rules that lack any substance, that do NOT reflect the traditions of language.

Are they????

I think you are wrong there. I think they came from reasonable people trying to establish reasonable rules of grammar to make a very, very complicated language more useful. I think you overstate the case for their being “empty.”

I may be wrong. Is there any chance whatsoever that you may be wrong?

Quote:

Let's stay on this particular section for a bit, Frank, because, seriously, [and again, I'm not being unkind] you are terribly confused on the whole picture. It's absolutely essential that you have a firm grasp of the terminology. These remarks, above, show that you do not. When you understand the concepts we can continue.

I think I have a grasp of the terminology being used here, JTT. We disagree on context. Continue or do not continue as you see fit. I am enjoying the discussion…and I am trying to glean some knowledge from what you are saying.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

JTT wrote:
Why ask Izzy, Dave?
Because I look upon him as a friend & I discuss things with him.
This is a discussion forum.

And here was me thinking you were asking for spitual guidance. Have you tried the prayer? Did you get a panda?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

JTT wrote:
Why ask Izzy, Dave?
Because I look upon him as a friend & I discuss things with him.
This is a discussion forum.

izzythepush wrote:

And here was me thinking you were asking for spitual guidance.
Have you tried the prayer?

Not yet.

izzythepush wrote:

Did you get a panda?

Yeah. When I was around maybe 2, my mom gave me one.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Of course 'prescriptive' is narrowly defined, Frank. It has a meaning that is specific to the study of language. This isn't any different than how every other scientific discipline uses words to define something, you want to label it 'narrow', but it really only specific - a meaning that is specific to the study of language.

Some nations have taken prescriptivism more seriously than others. The Italians founded the Academia della Cruscain 1582 and in 1635 Cardinal Richelieu gave the French the Academie francaise.

We Brits disdained such operations as Matthew Arnold explained and justified.

The statutes of the Academia francaise define it's principle function as " to labour with all possible care and diligence to give definite rules to our language, and to render it pure, eloquent, and capable of treating the arts and sciences."

A scientific discipline cannot use language to define the antics of humans in complex societies. It tries but ends up in absurdity using the broad brush method.

It seems to me that prescriptivism forces the best writers to practice, and aim to perfect, eloquence and that its opponents are merely those who are incapable of exercising such a highly regarded facility.

It must have seemed the same to the Spanish (1713), followed by Spanish nations in South America, the Swedes (1786), the Hungarians (1830). Also some Arab countries and the Hebrew Language Academy( 1953).

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Note how you have ignored your serious confusion, Frank.

[I see later that you haven't]

Quote:

Under any circumstances, you are being prescriptive in your descriptive orientation. You are prescribing what is or is not acceptable...

That's false, Frank. I'm describing rules that are actually in the language. I've described rules that are not of the English language. I describe how people use language according to register/social situation/degree of seriousness/etc.

Quote:

and you most assuredly are suggesting, in a prescriptive way, that to accept prescriptive norms of grammar to the point of calling deviations from those norms to the attention of people deviating from them...is somehow wrong (a lie or falsehood spreading). That is, in essence, being prescriptive...

Frank, if you said "bears never hibernate" and I pointed out that you likely had gathered this from some poor source and it was a falsehood, would you not agree?

Then if you continued to advance that idea at other times, then each time you did so, it would most assuredly be a lie. Would you not agree?

Quote:

Not sure of your point,

My point was that you are mixed up in your use of terminology - so much so that it makes no sense.

Quote:

But doing it the way you have been doing it, JTT, IS being descriptive...and IS telling people what they must do to conform to your rules of grammatical conduct (usage and commentary on grammar)

Quote:

You essentially are telling others that they must not question grammatical prescriptions...prescribing, in effect, that doing so is "wrong."

This is the exact opposite of what I have been telling people. How can we discuss this when you keep saying you understand the concepts and terminology and then you do this?

Why not rephrase those questions and I'll address them?

Quote:

Are they????

I think you are wrong there. I think they came from reasonable people trying to establish reasonable rules of grammar to make a very, very complicated language more useful. I think you overstate the case for their being “empty.”

I may be wrong. Is there any chance whatsoever that you may be wrong?

How can you say that they came from reasonable people when you know nothing of the history of those "rules"?

How can you even bring this up now when it was many many posts back wherein you were provided historical accounts showing how these bogus rules were simply made up, with the authors ignoring completely the historical precedents?

If you are willing to follow an account of a few of these "rules" you might begin to see a pattern.

Why do you try to suggest that it is me and only me who knows of these prescriptions?

You have ignored every discussion from language scientists on these issues. Not a one, not one of these old rule makers was a language scientist. They were all only interested in selling their books. They were snake oil salesmen. That why we get progressively sillier rules.

Quote:

Horrible wording on my part…and either an inadvertent mistake or evidence that I am an ignorant jerk unworthy of engagement in discussion with someone as learned as you.

I know which I would choose, but I will accept that you can make a decision on that for yourself.

Just be honest, Frank. You know which it is and if you tell me which it is, I'll believe you. But don't act surprised that it should give me some measure of pause.

3 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Frank, if you said "bears never hibernate" and I pointed out
that you likely had gathered this from some poor source
and it was a falsehood, would you not agree?

Then if you continued to advance that idea at other times,
then each time you did so, it would most assuredly be a lie.
Would you not agree?

Just speaking for myself here, J,
if u said that to me, and I continued saying what I had said b4,
that most certainly wud NOT be a lie.

It 'd simply be that I had no respect for what u said,
deeming it to have no merit,
because I know that u cannot reason,
nor have u any desire to reason; i.e., I 'd have simply brushed off
what u said, attributing no greater value to it than the barking of a dog.

THAT is not a lie.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
Did you get a panda?
Yeah. When I was around maybe 2, my mom gave me one.

Proof of the retroactive power of prayer. Praise be, a miracle! I should try selling them.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
Did you get a panda?
Yeah. When I was around maybe 2, my mom gave me one.

izzythepush wrote:

Proof of the retroactive power of prayer.
Praise be, a miracle! I should try selling them.

YEAH! That got there FAST!

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

if u said that to me, and I continued saying what I had said b4,
that most certainly wud NOT be a lie.

Why "b4" Dave and not " b a lie"? If "u" why not "sed"? Where's "n" gone for "and". Why not "wot"? Why "to me" and not "2 me"? Why the spaces between words?

U don't seem to b able 2 tayk ur own advice.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

You have ignored every discussion from language scientists on these issues

That's one of your tricks too JT.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Horrible wording on my part…and either an inadvertent mistake or evidence that I am an ignorant jerk unworthy of engagement in discussion with someone as learned as you.

I know which I would choose, but I will accept that you can make a decision on that for yourself.

Just be honest, Frank. You know which it is and if you tell me which it is, I'll believe you. But don't act surprised that it should give me some measure of pause.

YES! Now this is what I’m talkin’ about!

Beautiful…gorgeous. I love it.

With a response like this, you get to be civil…and you get your need cared for.

I may end up considering you my best student ever.

Subtlety never hurt anyone, JTT, and as you can see, it can be quite effective.

By the way, I've noted the improvement in other posts of yours to other people on other threads also. I simply have not wanted to interject comments on style where not appropriate, but I am following your progress with a big smile on my face.

Keep up the good work.

Ummm…as for the rest of your last post, you just do not get it—and I understand. We’ll leave that part be, because there is no way you can ever acknowledge what is obvious to so many of us…that you are more into the notion of “correct grammar” than most of the people whom you lecture in that area. Unfortunately (for effective discussion) your need to be prescriptive in your descriptive activities in this area are hidden from your conscious view.

You are, however, being prescriptive whether you can see it or not, JTT. You are defining “prescriptive” too narrowly…and arbitrarily to bolster your arguments.

Fine. We cannot meet in the middle on that, so you stick with your take and I will stick with mine…and you can have what considerations you deem appropriate about my abilities with the English language and with the grammar that helps make it work.

And when doing so leads to such beauty as the quote I offered up above, it is all worthwhile.

3 Replies

Periods Meeting Quotes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know