Re: Jiu Jitsu Strategies: Sports vs Reality

"Renli" <oliver.richman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e277ffcf-c979-43c8-862b-6c66ded9e7f8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 9, 10:49 pm, "Wayne Dobson" <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Technically it is not correct; when you say "it won't read different"
you are committing hypostatization (otherwise known as reification; a
form of pathetic fallacy). Although it is possible to derive your
intended meaning, it is still an error in communication in much the
same way some people mispronounce certain spellings; to wit; while it
is commonly understood it is an error because it creates ambiguous
meaning in certain situations.

Nah, I don't think so. ... The meaning derives from how it is commonly
understood, not from what any individual feels it should mean.

You are right. However, in the examples I provided, I illustrated a
clear difference in meaning. In language we rely on tense to indicate
many things; in the examples I provided, I demonstrated why the first
case was technically incorrect. And while I did (and still do) agree
that the only logical interpretation of the first case was to take it
as the second (correct) case, it is still a dangerous construct to
rely on - precisely because of the possible ambiguity.

Natural languages are full of idiosyncrasies. It's not correct to say that
because a particular construct produces completely different meanings,
depending on the type of noun inserted into it, that another construct,
which only allows one particular meaning to be expressed, should be used; or
that because a particular construct could lead to ambiguities in certain
contexts, it should also not be used in the contexts in which it does not
create any ambiguities. That's not how we use languages.

So while in both cases "it" refers to the book, in the first
case saying "different" implies that "it" (the book) is doing the
reading, only in the second case is it unambiguously clear that the
book is /being/ read, and not actually doing the reading itself.

No. It is unambiguously clear that the book couldn't possibly be reading
itself.

I understand your sentiment, however that same sentiment is, to quote,
"...what any individual feels it should mean." Namely, you. That's
precisely why the grammatical construct is important here - one
individual (you) cannot both reinterpret the rules of grammar as he
sees fit and to quote, be "commonly understood".

I haven't reinterpreted the rules of grammar. That is the official line.

In a certain sense I share your pain because the same trick has been
pulled on me countless times, although the perpetrators have often
confused the correct and incorrect forms when chiding me - much to my
amusement as I am sure you are aware.

I don't feel pain over it.

While at first glance the disctinction appears academic, if "it"
referred to a creature or person we see why the distinction is
appropriate. Consider the sentances "He said it didn't look very good"
and "he said it didn't look very well". Another example, "She looked
beautiful". "She looked beautifully". In both cases the emphasis
shifts from the subject (it, he, she) doing the action, to the action
being performed on the object. I believe this is significant enough to
warrant the concern that has been expressed.

No it doesn't. It was a point-scoring exercise with no merit.

I'm not sure what you mean by "no, it doesn't" - the examples are
quite clear. The basic rule is "Adjectives modify nouns; adverbs
modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs." (http://
owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/esl/esladjadv.html). As an English
teacher I deal with this rule every day, and it appears not only in
the above quote but also in books such as "Grammar in Context 3",
"Understanding and Using English Grammar" and "Fundamentals of English
Grammar".

Quite basically, since you used an adjective, you modified a noun,
implying the noun itself was the focus; when clearly it was the verb
("read") which was to be modified. This is essentially what Peter said
- you used an adjective and you should have used an Adverb.

Peter is an ass, who's grasp of the English language is tenuous, at best.
For instance, do you know what an 'adverbial function' is? Peter brought it
up, yet he doesn't seem to know what it is, either.

Then he thought, until corrected, that particular words fell into discrete
categories of speech, irrespective of context. Note these two dumbass
questions:

"What part of speech is 'read'? What part of speech is'different'?" - GDS

He fluked on the second one, as to my knowledge, that can only be used as an
adjective. But he didn't know that.

Then, he thought that he was saying something meaningful when he stated that
the function of an adverb was to qualify. That's all he said in an effort
to highlight the distinction between an adverb and an adjective - a big
goof.

Then, he used the expression: "Who has to get an education?" What he
actually meant to say was, "Who needs to get an education?" His version
suggests that someone or something is compelling me to get an education,
which is not what he meant to say. His clumsy use of English doesn't
suggest competence, to me.

Since the
only logical interpretation was that you wanted to modify the verb, it
was taken as such; but the misuse of an adjective in place of an
adverb is quite jarring and implies you either do not care enough to
speak properly (or are not paying much attention), or that you do not
have an education which supports dialogue at this level...

I don't view it as jarring. I consider the pedantic adherence to formal
grammatical rules, in an informal setting, to be stilted and unnatural.
That's not how people converse, with good reason.

One very real and not pedantic problem we encounter with your posts,
Wayne, is that even though in this particular instance "we know what
you mean", there are other parts of your posts which, due to the
grammatical androgeny you are known for, cannot be taken to mean any
particular thing. This is sad, because I feel you have a lot to offer
this newsgroup and you're obviously being held back by your ability to
communicate... what a crying shame.

I am being held back by my ability to communicate? Was that deliberate, or
was it an inability?

--
Wayne Dobson
AKA "Dobbie The House Elf"


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Jiu Jitsu Strategies: Sports vs Reality
    ... meaning in certain situations. ... individual cannot both reinterpret the rules of grammar as he ... The basic rule is "Adjectives modify nouns; adverbs ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: My big little book
    ... looking literate or communicating meaning? ... Friend of my aunt submitted a romance to ... kind of writer) and mark the adjectives and adverbs. ... try to look at every adverb and see if I can't change it to a verb to ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Does this name sound correct?
    ... Both these phrases are grammatically OK -- but ... the order of adjectives. ... syntax or grammar. ... difference in meaning? ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: SCWC 32: Discussion: IMPLEMENT
    ... they have the same referent. ... Is that the same as "the same meaning"? ... have their usual meanings, and a devious 'cryptic' reading, in which things ... grammar are violated in the cryptic reading to make the surface work. ...
    (rec.puzzles.crosswords)
  • Re: German participles
    ... same meaning. ... I would consult a grammar, ... Without resorting to ellipsis, one would be hard pressed to explain why ... in contrast to active intransitive verbs that take ...
    (sci.lang)
Loading