| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | is whereas becoming a transition? Thread poster: transparx
|
|---|
transparx 
United States
Local time: 07:08
English to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
...it just dawned on me (actually, it happened the other day, but I had no time to stop and post) that it wasn't necessary to go to great lengths and think up examples containing the other two kinds of noun clauses. Even that-clauses would do unless the verb is a transitive one.
1) * He told me. That you lived in Brooklyn.
2) * I think. That it is raining.
I just assumed without questioning that that-clauses had been thoroughly tested!
N.B. An asteris... See more ...it just dawned on me (actually, it happened the other day, but I had no time to stop and post) that it wasn't necessary to go to great lengths and think up examples containing the other two kinds of noun clauses. Even that-clauses would do unless the verb is a transitive one.
1) * He told me. That you lived in Brooklyn.
2) * I think. That it is raining.
I just assumed without questioning that that-clauses had been thoroughly tested!
N.B. An asterisk indicates unacceptability. ▲ Collapse
| | | | transparx
United States
Local time: 07:08
English to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | I know what you mean, but... | Apr 5, 2007 |
Jackie Bowman wrote:
If that “someone” is a graduate student of linguistics in any organization that is charging them or their parents very large amounts of money … then I give all of them, and all of their parents and all their other financiers, my fondest wishes.
I heartily hope that it is not a waste of time and money for them for me to teach them.
| | | | Richard Benham
France
Local time: 13:08
German to English
+ ...
In memoriam | Waddya mean a counterexample should generalize? | Apr 14, 2007 |
Transparx wrote:
I am afraid that your counterexample is not a counterexample. If it were, it should generalize.
Huh? A counterexample is a counterexample. It does not need to generalize. You made a general claim, and I found a case to which it did not apply; therefore the general claim is false. That’s what a counterexample is. End of story.
For example, if you claim that all swans are (predominantly) white, I only need to find one non-white swan to prove you wrong. The existence of many thousands of black swans is a bonus
| | | | transparx
United States
Local time: 07:08
English to Italian
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | no, it is <i>not</i> the end of the story! | Apr 20, 2007 |
Richard Benham wrote:
Huh? A counterexample is a counterexample. It does not need to generalize. You made a general claim, and I found a case to which it did not apply; therefore the general claim is false. That’s what a counterexample is. End of story.
For example, if you claim that all swans are (predominantly) white, I only need to find one non-white swan to prove you wrong. The existence of many thousands of black swans is a bonus
If you capture a white swan and dye it black, then you are manipulating and falsifying data.
My claim still stands. You said that (1) is a counterexample. Well, it isn't!
1) I told him, that you understand.
You said it can be interpreted in two different ways, namely (2) and (3).
2) I told him that you understand.
3) I told him. That you understand.
I said that if (3) were a true counterexample (your black swan), then you should be able to find more such sentences (many thousands of black swans). In other words, your counterexample should generalize.
I took your counterexample seriously and tried hard to come up with others. Had I found them, I would have said, "You're right, Richard! Thank you!" Instead, I realized that your claim did not hold water when the lexical items in the example you provided were replaced. It is not my fault! Why not accept it?
To the above, I would like to add that I am not convinced that (2) and (3) are the only interpretations one can think of. If I suspect that the writer has made an error, then I might even conclude that s/he wanted to write (4), for instance.
4) I told him that you didn't understand, but he just said he thinks that you understand.
I thought Bloomfield and Skinner were dead and buried (may their souls rest in peace!), but apparently they are still causing harm in some parts of the world.
[Edited at 2007-04-20 08:11]
| | |
|
|
|
Spring City (X)
Local time: 19:08
Chinese to English
+ ...
| It's just wrong | May 15, 2007 |
transparx wrote:
I have noticed that some of my students (native speakers) use whereas in the following way:
1) Mary is rich. Whereas, John is poor.
I can tell you for nothing that these students of yours did not get a good education before they met you!
| | | | Spring City (X)
Local time: 19:08
Chinese to English
+ ...
Transparx, we are going through a shift, but I would characterize the shift as a shift towards a less educated population, more accustomed to reading text messages than novels. I would not insist that everyone regard this shift in neutral terms. I would allow people to approve of it and also to deprecate it, because it is a matter of opinion! It sounds like Richard Benham is not a fan of uneducated speech. I see nothing wrong with that.
As for "I must of did it", I think you are wro... See more Transparx, we are going through a shift, but I would characterize the shift as a shift towards a less educated population, more accustomed to reading text messages than novels. I would not insist that everyone regard this shift in neutral terms. I would allow people to approve of it and also to deprecate it, because it is a matter of opinion! It sounds like Richard Benham is not a fan of uneducated speech. I see nothing wrong with that.
As for "I must of did it", I think you are wrong in believing that linguists are still trying to analyse why people speak/write that way. From my personal experience, a very large minority of English people speak that way, and it is clear they are trying to say "I must have done it". As "have" is often reduced in pronunciation, it does indeed sound like "of", and so people are writing "of". You used "did" instead of "done" in your example. "I must of done it" contains a single mistake. "I must of did it" compounds the error, but this sort of sentence is frequently found in speech.
Absolute prescriptivism would be as bad as absolute descriptivism. For me, the golden mean is to prefer the grammatical forms used by the educated section of the population. In other words, if 51% of the English population wrote "must of", I would not regard that as "standard English" despite the majority in favour of a debased form. As long as the educated classes defend the pass against this particular solecism, it cannot become standard English. If the educated classes come to accept this form eventually, it will probably eventually emerge either as an acceptable variant or even as the only standard form, much as many debased forms have become standard through the process of linguistic change. In other words, we need to focus our descriptivism on the educated section of the population, and once we have found out what forms that section of the population still prefers, we should prescribe them for use by the population asa a whole. This still allows for linguistic change, but with the standard remaining determined by the educated classes throughout the process.
Who qualifies as a member of the educated classes? That is the thorny problem, as your graduate students training to become teachers no doubt view themselves as educated. This is the problem with dumbing down: eventually even teachers and university lecturers join in the general process. As 50% of people go to university in many Western societies, I am not sure that we should define every graduate as an educated person for the purposes I have outlined above. It is a sad reflection on our universities that people are given degrees who cannot write their native tongue to an adequate standard. Theoretically, all graduates should be educated people. In practice, this is no longer the case. I would look to the grammatical forms of careful speakers. As long as there are sizeable numbers of people who say "if I were you" instead of "if I was you", the subjunctive will remain a living part of standard English regardless of the usages that prevail in text messages. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » is whereas becoming a transition? | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
