be of a reader. How can this sentence be right?

@nateriver,

So, why not go and ask your Korean grammar teachers to explain, instead of asking A2k, as you obviously aren't interested in the answers you get here?

1 Reply

@nateriver,

nateriver, you are a fool. We are not wrong. You are.

0 Replies

@nateriver,

Quote:

The reason you guys it is idiom is that you guys don't know how to explain this in grammar

Fowler has almost two pages on the preposition of. Errors in the usage are listed under 7 headings. (1) Wrong patching; (2)Patching the unpatchable; (3) Side-slip; (4) Irresolution; (5) Needless repetition; (6) Misleading omission; (7) Some freaks of idiom.

I have explained your example fully in terms of different meanings. None of Fowler's entries deal with it. The use or non-use of the of is for the clarity I explained. Twice I think.

But before you get all technical about English my advice is to avoid silly assertions such as "The reason you guys it is idiom is that you guys don't know how to explain this in grammar." (The second "you guys" is pointless.)

You won't win many friends with statements like that. And with no friends you will have to stew in your own juice.

How does one explain correct grammar?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

No, you are wrong. The sentences function the same, they deliver the same (unambiguous) message, with or without "of" being inserted.

That's a classic example of error due to not reading all the posts on a thread. The sentences do not function in the same way. They are both correct in different contexts. As I explained.

It is a quantity/quality problem.

And I am a very long way from being an expert on grammar.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

No, you are wrong.

What is Nate wrong about, Set? Surely you, of all people, don't believe Nate errs in thinking that "[N]ative speakers tend to be quite bad at explaining grammar".

There are whole threads, ones that you fully participated in, that stand as testament to just how bad native speakers are at explaining grammar, or language for that matter.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

There are whole threads, ones that you fully participated in, that stand as testament to just how bad native speakers are at explaining grammar, or language for that matter.

The whole point of language is to convey meaning. That statement has no meaning. The threads referred to are a minuscule sub-set of "native speakers" and no conclusions can safely be drawn from them.

As such it is the worst possible sort of grammar only fractionally short of gibberish.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

The whole point of language is to convey meaning.

It is indeed, Spendi.

It's ironic that that statement should issue from your mouth.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Because your comprehension is not up to my prose is no reason for you to make sarcastic remarks about it.

My prose is terse and to the point inasmuch as it can only ever shine a light in one small part of the shadows at once. You are supposed to remember the illuminated bits and piece it all together as you might do when exploring a cellar with a pencil torch.

When did you last use a figure of speech as good as that? I don't think you have the nerve for figures of speech.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Because your comprehension is not up to my prose is no reason for you to make sarcastic remarks about it.

I guess I'm sort of relieved, Spendius, because when he's having a go at you he's not having a go at me. He will affect not to know what a torch is, I expect.

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

because when he's having a go at you he's not having a go at me.

What was that you said, C, about you not being responsible for the over-defensiveness of some people. One would think that would apply across the board.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Spendi: The whole point of language is to convey meaning.

Then, two posts later,

Spendi: You are supposed to remember the illuminated bits and piece it all together as you might do when exploring a cellar with a pencil torch.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Fowler has almost two pages on the preposition of. Errors in the usage are listed under 7 headings. (1) Wrong patching; (2)Patching the unpatchable; (3) Side-slip; (4) Irresolution; (5) Needless repetition; (6) Misleading omission; (7) Some freaks of idiom.

The problem in reading Fowler is that one never knows which way he is going to vote. Is he going to allow a usage because it is widespread, or is he going to condemn it for the same reason? ... The impression the entries give is that Fowler considers to be idiomatic what he himself uses. Usages he does not like are given such labels as 'ugly' (e.g. at historicity) or even 'evil' (e.g. at respectively).

Quote:

None of Fowler's entries deal with it.

There seems to b a reasonable explanation for that, Spendi. This collocation is relatively new. And according to, I believe it was three BrE speakers, it is not part of BrE.

Weren't you the one chastising Setanta for not reading all the available information on the thread?

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

The problem in reading Fowler is that one never knows which way he is going to vote. Is he going to allow a usage because it is widespread, or is he going to condemn it for the same reason? ... The impression the entries give is that Fowler considers to be idiomatic what he himself uses. Usages he does not like are given such labels as 'ugly' (e.g. at historicity) or even 'evil' (e.g. at respectively).

This is OK by most people who read Fowler and come to that, Onions. One may agree or disagree as one pleases. Language is a human endeavour and a multiplicity of positions is permissible, even inevitable. The fact that this is a "problem" for you, coupled with your curiously affectless delivery and the obsessive, stalkerish way you hunt down and infiltrate this types of thread really makes me wonder if you are (diagnosed or not) somewhere on the autistic spectrum. Or maybe you've just got the Ass part of Assberger's [sic].

1 Reply

@contrex,

Quote:

Language is a human endeavour and a multiplicity of positions is permissible, even inevitable.

And yet that is one of the major negative reactions of prescriptivists to language change, C. Odd that we might hear it from you.

Quote:

One may agree or disagree as one pleases.

Of course that's true. But just don't try and pass off these arrantly nonsensical opinions as being somehow pertinent to how language actually operates. You've tried that numerous times before and it didn't work out very well for you, did it?

Tell me, what good is a "grammar" book that shuns study and operates on the basis of opinion.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

how language actually operates

Thanks for one of the best laughs I've had for some time. You really are an Assburger, aren't you? Or just an opinionated prick.

1 Reply

@contrex,

All too typical of you, Contrex. You simply are not capable of discussing language issues.

0 Replies

Some of the discourse here has deviated from the purely academic, I've noticed.

2 Replies

@McTag,

Rather.

Joe(There's a lot of ego in apparent jeopardy,) Nation

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

as you obviously aren't interested in the answers you get here?

And that comes as a surprise to you, Izzy? Which answers did you find satisfying?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

How does one explain correct grammar?

With years of a great deal of thought and effort. The CGEL needed some 1900 pages to do so. For the LGSWE it took 1200 pages, but theirs had a different focus.

Even old Henry attempted to do so. If you didn't think he did then you wouldn't be so defensive of the old bugger and his book.

So, [not Joe's 'so'] what is your confusion, Spendi, in your remark above?

1 Reply

be of a reader. How can this sentence be right?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know