Re: Help needed with clue from CROSSWORD


"Flying Tortoise" <purple.mug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:522cabb9-f9d4-4fe3-9055-bc6f67546039@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 27, 9:44 pm, "grabber" <g...@xxxxx> wrote:
"Flying Tortoise" <purple....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:a551e3e6-3579-4784-b4a3-2692ca4563e3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 26, 9:47 pm, "grabber" <g...@xxxxx> wrote:



>> >"Flying Tortoise" <purple....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >news:f72bda77-2726-4e73-835a->d7db6d117__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z__@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>On Jan 26, 8:27 pm, "grabber" <g...@xxxxx> wrote:
>> >> "Flying Tortoise" <purple....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

>> >>news:3e2b231c-8e1d-44e1-bfc7-880901c45333@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> >> >On Jan 24, 11:21 pm, "Paul E Collins" >> >> ><find_my_real_addr...@xxxxxxx>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> <stei...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> > Could someone please help me with a clue from this month's
>> >> >> > CROSSWORD?
>> >> >> > Thanks.
>> >> > > Group of offspring are brilliant(7)
>> >> >> > I've been looking at it for days with no results!

>> >> >> Could it be GLITTER? (G + LITTER.)

>> >> >Looks good but no prizes for the clue. Group ARE brilliant? Oh >> >> >dear,
>> >> >oh dear, oh dear!

>> >> I dare say I'm missing some in joke here, but as a noun of >> >> multitude,
>> >> "group" can surely cope with a verb in either a singular or a >> >> plural
>> >> form.
>> >Au contraire mon brave! I simply do not recognise this 'noun of
>> >multitude' malarkey. There is one group or there are many groups (and
>> >they may be all present simultaneously) and the plural can only apply

>> in the latter case lest confusion break out of the can of worms (of

>> >which I assume you would not attempt to justify the pluralisation?).
>> >Collective nouns are singular or they are not collective. A group
>> >prepares a report, comes to a decision, acts concertedly or it is not
>> >a group. The group members may fly in all different directions but >> >the
>> >group in only one.

>> Your unwillingness to recognise the usage isn't a particularly strong
>> argument against it. Neither, I suppose, is it a good argument on the
>> other
>> side simply to cite authority, for example the late Henry Fowler's >> neat
>> explanation of what is going on. (Anyone out there who has not yet
>> acquired
>> a copy of the first or second edition of his Dictionary of Modern >> English
>> Usage is missing a great deal.) The lads over at the Language Log >> would
>> merely point you towards what real writers and speakers do, and laugh >> at
>> you
>> for being out of step.

>As I laugh at the definition of a 'real' writer that you and they must
>therefore hold. As I am a not infrequently published writer whose work
>has been subjected to the scrutiny of some of the best editors and sub-
>editors on the planet I'm afraid that I will not easily wear the yoke
>of 'chopped liver' that you so casually assume to be mine in that
>case.

If by this you mean that you wouldn't accept their ridicule as justified,
then no, obviously you wouldn't. You have a wholly different outlook from
theirs, I think. But if you want black-and-white distinctions between the
standard and the non-standard, then I think you are stuck with appealing
either to authority or to evidence about whether the usage is or is not
current, and I don't think you have a case on either count.



>I have no oobjection to the language developing as it may. That
>does not mean that I will stand idly by as it ceases to make any sense
>at all.

>> The best I can do is this: Clearly a group can be a single entity.
>> Equally
>> clearly, it is an aggregation of its members. Actions of the group >> will
>> sometimes be understood best by considering the group to be a single
>> thing,
>> and sometimes by regarding it as a collection of things. For example:
>> "The
>> group agrees to cooperate" implies an agreement with an external >> agency,
>> whereas "the group agree to cooperate" implies agreement amongst
>> themselves.
>> It works very well. Why sacrifice the distinction on the altar of a
>> schoolmarm's dictum?

>If such a dictum exists, I can assure you that it was never imparted
>to me by any school teacher of my acquaintance.. I was among the first
>of Britain's school pupils to be taught under the 'grammar doesn't
>matter' school of English (and the last to be versed in Latin as a
>matter of course). I have ne very simple criterion. Des it make sense?
>"The group agree to coperate" simply does not in so far as it is
>ambiguous, relies too heavily on the reader's interpretation agreeing
>with that of the writer, and therefore becomes a matter of opinion and
>not of fact.

This analysis seems me to be mistaken on both counts. As far as I can see,
"the group agree" makes perfect sense and is entirely unambiguous. Suppose,
for the sake of argument, that only the form - and never the sense - of the
subject is what determines the form of the verb. In that case, the mistake
would be like writing "I hates porridge". But this makes sense and is
entirely unambiguous - it just uses the wrong form of the verb. We wouldn't
write "hates" in this case because it neither has achieved currency nor
deserves to do so by virtue of any advantage it offers. By contrast, "the
group agree" is both current and allows the distinction of nuances that I
illustrated. The ability to make the distinction is likely to reduce
ambiguity rather than perpetrate it.

>Manifestly it does not 'work well'!

Claiming this does not make it true. This usage is is neither nonsensical
nor ambiguous. If it is in breach of some rule, you have cited neither
prescriptive authority nor descriptive evidence for any such rule.


It makes no sense to me. It is therefore nonsensical, even if I'm the
only person in the entire world that thinks so

If you mean nonsensical to *you*, this is true. If you mean nonsensical in any wider sense, the form of the argument is obviously invalid. No one person gets to decree what goes and what doesn't.

(which clearly I am
not!) What the cool dudes you so wish to associate yourself with in
their descriptive mantras

But I don't.

I think that a purely descriptivist approach leaves far too much out (which is not to say that I don't think the work of descriptive scholars of language is valuable, and worth pursuing as objectively as they can).

Beyond what *is* in the way language is used, I agree absolutely that there is what *ought* to be (and not to be). Getting a grip on the latter involves either submission to an authority or the realisation that a black-and-white distinction between "right" and "wrong" may not be possible.

The role of the prescriptivist is, or should be, essentially that of a critic of language. A good critic is knowledgeable, persuasive and entertaining - or at least interesting. You do not get anywhere by simply po-facedly telling people they are doing it wrong (unless you abusing a position of authority over impressionable people - if you are, you should be able to do quite a bit of damage). Rather, you need to show them why one thing is bad and another better.

fail to realise is that what they are
describing is the failure of English as it is spoken to actually
convey any meaning.

I think English is doing a pretty good job of letting people communicate. Whether it is getting more successful or less as time passes is not something I hold a strong view about; there are trends both to applaud and abhor, and I suspect the two more or less cancel each other out.

I'll leave you in the capable hands of Taylor Mali
to explain just why it matters that we don't stand idly by and take
notes while this absurd decline continues ...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SCNIBV87wV4

Now that is an example of good criticism. He makes it very clear what he doesn't like and why. He does so in a persuasive and entertaining way. Half the people laughing probably use the intonation and the verbal hiccups that he's mocking, yet he has got them on his side, if only for the duration of the routine.

As another example of a good critic, I'd cite Fowler, who I mentioned higher up the thread. Note his approach to a controversial topic - "different to", here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4HI0RQIDK0C&pg=PA28&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#PPA113,M1
and his advocacy of a nascent distinction, as with "that" and "which" here
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z4HI0RQIDK0C&pg=PA28&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=0_0#PPA635,M1

Whether you agree with him or not, he explains why he thinks what he thinks. His weapons are erudition and reason, not the issue of diktats.

I'd agree that the language needs its defenders; but it could do with fewer, and better, than it often gets.

.

Loading