Re: Bold prediction: Nadal will never win a title outside of clay anymore
- From: "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zaheen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:50:34 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 31, 3:02 am, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 30-Jan-2012, Court_1 <Olympia0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are you an English teacher? Because if you are not I don't care what
you say.
Why so harsh? Sure, I'm not an authority on the matter any more than you
are. That's no reason to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend I know
nothing about the subject.
My original statement was as follows:
If he loses his 7th straight big final to Novak that will set the pace
for the rest of his year and he will unlikely win any slams but, I
think no matter what happens tomorrow, he still has a good shot to win
the FO.
Repeat it as many times as you like, it won't change anything.
It was not a contradictory statement.
Yes, it was. The reason it's contradictory is because the French Open *is*
a slam. In the first clause, you claim that should he lose the match it's
unlikely he will win *any slams*, which by definition includes the French
Open. In the second clause, you claim he has a good shot to win the French
Open (a slam) regardless of the outcome of this match. In this case, I
think your argument hinges on the interpretation of the word "but". You
seem to be treating it as a preposition, as in "he won't win any slams but
the French" (ie. using "but" to mean "except"). In reality you are using is
as a conjunction between clauses, perhaps as a way to contrast or compare
the second with the first. The trouble is as stated you are not contrasting
one thing to another, your second clause is in fact a contradiction of the
first. There is a big difference between contrast and contradiction.
If I had said, if he loses his 7th final he will "definitely" not win
any future slams but I think no matter what happens tomorrow he will
win the FO for sure that would be contradictory.
In my original statement I stated, if he loses his 7th final he will
"unlikely" win any slams BUT no matter what he still has a shot at the
FO.
Are you sure that's what you meant? Reread the paragraph you repeated above
(yet again). You said he had a "good shot", not just "a shot". Are you
telling me "unlikely" is remotely comparable to "good shot"? If so, that
would be a first for me and probably most other posters here. Get out your
dictionary and read the definition of "unlikely" for starters.
I can't believe I am even arguing over this issue on a tennis forum.
It wouldn't be an issue if you actually took the time to *think* about what
you wrote with a critical eye. After all, the onus is on you to write with
clarity if you want to be understood. A reader should not have to guess
what you mean.
I don't want to pile it on court, but your explanation is right. Not
sure what's the big deal is though. People make silly mistakes like
this all the time. It sounds clear in our mind but in writing it can
come out differently when we are in a hurry. It takes understanding on
the reader's part as well. Then again, rst is all about fighting and
being tense about every single detail.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Thanks to the DJUICERBITCH!
- Next by Date: Re: Epic final sets up grand slam bid
- Previous by thread: Re: Bold prediction: Nadal will never win a title outside of clay anymore
- Next by thread: Re: Bold prediction: Nadal will never win a title outside of clay anymore
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
