yet vs and yet

Quote:

So, your objection is that preference for conciseness goes without saying because everybody does?

No, my objection is that it is meaningless. Which you have confirmed with what you have written above.

It's a language meme you have heard throughout your life and you think it sounds smart. Dropping one or two function words has little to nothing to do with being concise in language.

InfraBlue wrote: "They're both acceptable."

I said: Drop 'both'. [They're] describes them both.

Infra Blue replies: Sure, if it's for the sake of clarity be wordy and use both.

My example, using your own words illustrated that you could easily have dropped 'both'. There were only two choices. "They're" covered it.

But my example was only facetiousness to prove the point because I wouldn't think of suggesting you drop a completely natural English use to fit a silly meme about English.

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Quote:
So, your objection is that preference for conciseness goes without saying because everybody does?

No, my objection is that it is meaningless. Which you have confirmed with what you have written above.

How does what I've written above confirm that preference for conciseness is meaningless, exactly?

camlok wrote:

It's a language meme you have heard throughout your life and you think it sounds smart. Dropping one or two function words has little to nothing to do with being concise in language.

Actually, I learned it later in life, beginning around high school.

If these words don't change the meaning of what one is trying to say, or don't lead to ambiguity, then yes, they do have something to do with conciseness.

camlok wrote:

InfraBlue wrote: "They're both acceptable."

I said: Drop 'both'. [They're] describes them both.

Infra Blue replies: Sure, if it's for the sake of clarity be wordy and use both.

My example, using your own words illustrated that you could easily have dropped 'both'. There were only two choices. "They're" covered it.

But my example was only facetiousness to prove the point because I wouldn't think of suggesting you drop a completely natural English use to fit a silly meme about English.

So then, why would you drop 'both?"

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

So then, why would you drop 'both?"

Quote:

InfraBlue wrote: "They're both acceptable."

Camlok said: Drop 'both'. [They're] describes them both.

Infra Blue replies: Sure, if it's for the sake of clarity be wordy and use both.

NEW: I wrote that to illustrate that your meme about being concise was just that, a silly meme. 'both' was unnecessary, following your meme, yet you used it for some reason that is not in keeping with the meme.

Both 'they' and the context told everyone reading that there were two.

I had earlier said the same thing: "My example, using your own words illustrated that you could easily have dropped 'both'. There were only two choices. "They're" covered it."

We know in the originals that each of the two sentences/phrases, BOTH of them, has a nuance. This has been confirmed by Centrox, and I'm quite sure, you too. [I'll check after I post this.]

[My BOTH, above, was added for emphasis, which a strong believer in a silly meme might think there is a good reason to remove my emphasis]

This is the stuff of high school English and even college and university English. English teachers, at both levels, are some of the most ignorant people on the planet as regards the English language.

We see that in the advice that flows from those taught by those groups.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I knew shoplifting was bad, yet I did it all the same.
=============

Quote:

"And yet" serves to emphasize the irony of the situation, where "and" or "yet" alone would not.

1. I knew shoplifting was bad, yeeeeetttt I did it all the same.

2. I knew shoplifting was bad, aaaaaannnddd I did it all the same.

When 2nd language learners know the language from a speaking perspective, that's when true fluency has arrived. They know when to add small nuances and they know what words do that.

Young native speakers/children learn these tiny additions so easily from speech in context. 2nd language learners are at a distinct disadvantage because the written word does not convey intonation.

If we taught them the written language as above in 1 & 2 they would learn real language much better and much faster.

1 Reply

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

So then, why would you drop 'both?"

Quote:
InfraBlue wrote: "They're both acceptable."

Camlok said: Drop 'both'. [They're] describes them both.

Infra Blue replies: Sure, if it's for the sake of clarity be wordy and use both.

NEW: I wrote that to illustrate that your meme about being concise was just that, a silly meme. 'both' was unnecessary, following your meme, yet you used it for some reason that is not in keeping with the meme.

Both 'they' and the context told everyone reading that there were two.

I had earlier said the same thing: "My example, using your own words illustrated that you could easily have dropped 'both'. There were only two choices. "They're" covered it."

We know in the originals that each of the two sentences/phrases, BOTH of them, has a nuance. This has been confirmed by Centrox, and I'm quite sure, you too. [I'll check after I post this.]

[My BOTH, above, was added for emphasis, which a strong believer in a silly meme might think there is a good reason to remove my emphasis]

This is the stuff of high school English and even college and university English. English teachers, at both levels, are some of the most ignorant people on the planet as regards the English language.

We see that in the advice that flows from those taught by those groups.

Sure, one could easily have dropped 'both,' but then one would be losing the nuance with it's inclusion, which I explained in my first post.

But for your interpretation, I don't know that Centrox confirmed your assertion by what he wrote.

If one wants to be lucid in writing, conciseness is a secondary consideration.

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

I knew shoplifting was bad, yet I did it all the same.
=============

Quote:
"And yet" serves to emphasize the irony of the situation, where "and" or "yet" alone would not.

1. I knew shoplifting was bad, yeeeeetttt I did it all the same.

2. I knew shoplifting was bad, aaaaaannnddd I did it all the same.

When 2nd language learners know the language from a speaking perspective, that's when true fluency has arrived. They know when to add small nuances and they know what words do that.

Young native speakers/children learn these tiny additions so easily from speech in context. 2nd language learners are at a distinct disadvantage because the written word does not convey intonation.

If we taught them the written language as above in 1 & 2 they would learn real language much better and much faster.

Written language is different from spoken language though, and I doubt that perennialloner was considering prosody in their question.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

Written language is different from spoken language though, and I doubt that perennialloner was considering prosody in their question.

Possibly you are right, though the content wasn't of a terribly formal nature.

0 Replies

So, because each sentence has a nuance(s) ever so slightly differentiating them, conciseness should not even be a consideration? In other words, the first is not more concise than the second?
I think that's where I get into trouble sometimes. As camlok mentioned, my teachers always tell me to be concise, so I assume, regarding most matters, being concise is good. But perhaps my mistake is equating fewer words with conciseness when really conciseness is effectively putting together words that do not combine to become verbose.
Would I be right in saying that
I knew shoplifting was bad, yet did it all the same is virtually the same as I knew shoplifting was bad, but did it all the same?
While...

I knew shoplifting was bad, and yet did it all the same is virtually the same as I knew shoplifting was bad, but still did it all the same.

I don't think it's correct to say one is more concise. One simply has more information because of still modifying the action.

Tossing around the word concise might mislead.

Thank you, everyone. You've all helped me fill blanks in my understanding.

3 Replies

@perennialloner,

Quote:

So, because each sentence has a nuance(s) ever so slightly differentiating them, conciseness should not even be a consideration? In other words, the first is not more concise than the second?

That is 100% correct, PL.

Of course, everyone wants to be concise, but basically it's another silly canard that teachers/language mavens/proscribers use when they don't know anything about teaching actual language.

As InfraBlue noted, it came to him in high school.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

I trust you speak English as well as you write it.

Do you think these two, spoken, are equal in force, emphasis, ... ?

I knew shoplifting was bad, yet did it all the same.

I knew shoplifting was bad, ANNNNDDDD YEEEEETT I did it all the same?

1 Reply

@camlok,

I think I'd speak them with equal force. I certainly wouldn't shout or drag out and yet. Im not quite sure what you mean.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

You have so many questions ( and yet ) I have but one.

Given that you don't require other constructions of the sentences you endlessly deliver here , am I to assume that each and every treasure is part of your soon to be released oeuvre?

1 Reply

@ekename,

No. But you can assume you have discouraged me from asking more endlessly

I normally ask these questions after I've written a sentence and wonder what's the best way to write it, of the ways I have come up with. I am a student. I have to write essays quite often.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

Quote:

and wonder what's the best way to write it

Better to wonder about the best way of expressing the thought rather than insist upon Hobson's choice betwixt two.

Shoplifting is fraught with danger: that's why I do it.

1 Reply

@ekename,

If I wonder about this, why can't I have also wondered about the best way of expressing the thought?

I do wonder about the best way to express the thought. I suppose I also have lesser concerns that you find trivial.

If your sentence about shoplifting intended to teach me a better way to express the thought, I don't get it. Without context, as so many here have referenced, it's just a grammatical sentence.

The sentences I construct contain elements of sentences I have written, after considering context and the best way of expressing the thought.

You may find my questions annoying or useless, but I have learned what I believe is valuable information from them, and I get enjoyment out of them.

So, even if I should be asking different questions, I don't think there's harm in asking them, though you've made me feel they're stupid.

1 Reply

@perennialloner,

perennialloner wrote:

So, because each sentence has a nuance(s) ever so slightly differentiating them, conciseness should not even be a consideration? In other words, the first is not more concise than the second?

The first is more concise than the second--by one word. It expresses the same general meaning. That the second is more nuanced does not negate those facts.

Conciseness is a consideration when nuance isn't important.

0 Replies

@camlok,

camlok wrote:

Of course, everyone wants to be concise, but basically it's another silly canard that teachers/language mavens/proscribers use when they don't know anything about teaching actual language.

So, it's a canard to teach what everyone wants?

camlok wrote:

As InfraBlue noted, it came to him in high school.

And yet you made the assumption that it's a language meme that I've heard throughout my life.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

So, it's a canard to teach what everyone wants?

No, the canard is thinking that it is something that people don't already do. They do this by following the rules of English grammar. The people who repeat this canard are simply following the canard that was "taught" to them.

It's just a meme because there is no followup. Opinions as to how one can be more concise invariably illustrate just how little the putative advisor knows about the language.

You were wrong in using it here, illustrating, once more, its uselessness, because both examples have their place and the reasons for those have been discussed at length.

And it has nothing at all to do with being concise. This, too, was noted by PL.

It's a language meme we all hear throughout our lives.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Once again you're confusing written language with spoken language. Conciseness in speech is a different animal than conciseness in writing which is something that is necessarily taught. Your arguments are straw men put up merely for the sake of arguing.

2 Replies

@perennialloner,

Quote:

I think I'd speak them with equal force. I certainly wouldn't shout or drag out and yet. Im not quite sure what you mean.

I mean that this is what is done in the spoken language, by native speakers.

I didn't suggest that all caps necessarily means shouting, though I know and agree that all caps means shouting has become the idea/norm in writing on the internet.

I don't know where you are as regards your speaking abilities but we [English native speakers/also speakers of other languages in those languages] obviously have many more ways of providing emphasis that writing simply cannot show.

0 Replies

yet vs and yet

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know