College Life

[mindseye]

Originally posted by jonb@Jan 31 2005, 01:03 AM
My personal bugaboo is redundancy. Examples:

ATM machine
HIV virus
with au jus

I've argued in the past that repeating the noun after an acronym isn't redundant. Instead, it's a sign that the acronym has become 'absorbed' into the language as a word itself, much in the same way that the word 'radar' has. 'Radar' was originally an acronym, but today many people use the word without even knowing what it originally stood for -- it's managed to 'de-acronymize' itself into the language.

With ATM and HIV, we use these acronyms as adjectives to describe other objects -- "ATM card", "ATM network", "ATM transaction", "HIV awareness", "HIV infection", "HIV vaccine".

As people grow accustomed to the acronym as a word unto itself and not as three separate letters, then the natural way to use that word is to continue to use it as an adjective, so when they want to talk about the machine or the virus, "ATM machine" and "HIV virus" are the logical way of doing so. Insisting that everyday acronyms like ATM and HIV not evolve in our language is as prescriptivist as insisting that splitting infinitives in English is taboo because they were once single words in Latin.

(I'll make the observation that not all acronyms enter our language as adjectives. For example, we say "CD" and not "CD disc"; "TV" and no longer "TV set".)

 

[whng9]

What about "pre board" ?? How do you board before you board an airplane?

And is "Pro active" really a word? can you act before you act?

 

[13788]

jordanj: There's PIN number as well.


(I know, another crappy example but I couldn't think what else to say)

 

[RPM]

Enjoy college!

You be finding it after it is over to be the best years of your life.

My first 2 years at college was awesome....discovered alot of women... small petite to big and fat, from white to black.

As for endowment.... you find women who either love it or hate it.

After the 2 years, was only with 1 woman up until a year ago... today.


Anyways am going to be the oldest university student again this fall, at 28 gonna get myself that MBA and law degree and hopefully some women.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by mindseye@Jan 31 2005, 06:42 AM
Insisting that everyday acronyms like ATM and HIV not evolve in our language is as prescriptivist as insisting that splitting infinitives in English is taboo because they were once single words in Latin.

That is a common misconception. The reason for not splitting infinitives has nothing to do with Latin. English is not a Romance language, so Latin grammatical details do not apply. In English, one should not split an infinitive because an English infinitive, though composed of two words, functions as a single grammatical unit, therefore its elements should not be separated from each other.

 

[13788]

lighthouse:

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Jan 30 2005, 10:20 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Jan 30 2005, 10:20 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jonb@Jan 30 2005, 10:07 PM
Well, one thing about being an English teacher: You learn all kinds of creative spellings.

[post=278883]Quoted post[/post]​

True. The two words that I&#39;ve seen misspelled most often in my classroom are the same that I see misspelled here and elsewhere on the internet: &#39;definite(ly)&#39; misspelled as &#39;definate[ly]&#39; and &#39;tongue&#39; misspelled as &#39;tounge&#39;. And of course, the &#39;there/their/they&#39;re&#39; confusion is omnipresent.

[post=278891]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

I enjoy the personal ads in which the person presents himself as &#39;discrete&#39;. I always assumed he could go on several dates at the same time, in different places, with different people......

Is a discrete relationship something like the pilot who has wives in several cities?

How about discrete encounters? Do they have to get two hotel rooms?

 

[mindseye]

Hmm, I think you&#39;re actually making my point about prescripitivism for me.

I&#39;ll cite a source, though. From The American Heritage Book of English Usage, 1996:

The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin. The thinking is that because the Latin infinitive is a single word, the English infinitive should be treated as if it were a single unit. But English is not Latin, and people split infinitives all the time without giving it a thought.

Incidentally, the book goes on to boldly give examples of split infinitives and their &#39;acceptability&#39;:

If you plan on keeping your split infinitives, you should be wary of constructions that have more than one word between to and the verb. The Usage Panel splits down the middle on the one-adverb split infinitive. Fifty percent accept it in the sentence The move allowed the company to legally pay the employees severance payments that in some cases exceeded &#036;30,000. But only 23 percent of the panel accepts the split infinitive in this sentence: We are seeking a plan to gradually, systematically, and economically relieve the burden. The panel is more tolerant of constructions in which the intervening words are intrinsic to the sense of the verb. Eighty-seven percent of the panel accepts the sentence We expect our output to more than double in a year.

You claim that the infinitive "functions as a single grammatical unit", but I think even that&#39;s open to debate. If I&#39;m certain about a future event, I say I will receive my PhD&#33;, but if I&#39;m less certain about it, I might say I hope to receive my PhD&#33;. Traditional grammar teaches that in the first example, the verb is &#39;will receive&#39; (but we don&#39;t mind splitting that with, for example, I will gladly receive my PhD&#33;) and that in the second example, the verb is &#39;hope&#39;. But a naive speaker -- learning the language by immersion instead of through a book -- might conclude that "hope" and "expect" require the particle "to" after them, whereas "will" does not. By that inference, the "to" is a function of the verb that precedes it and not of the verb that follows it. And the fact that such an inference is even possible casts doubt in my mind on the &#39;absolute truth&#39; of the notion that the infinitive is a single grammatical unit.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by mindseye@Feb 4 2005, 01:14 AM
You claim that the infinitive "functions as a single grammatical unit", but I think even that&#39;s open to debate. If I&#39;m certain about a future event, I say I will receive my PhD&#33;, but if I&#39;m less certain about it, I might say I hope to receive my PhD&#33;. Traditional grammar teaches that in the first example, the verb is &#39;will receive&#39; (but we don&#39;t mind splitting that with, for example, I will gladly receive my PhD&#33;) and that in the second example, the verb is &#39;hope&#39;. But a naive speaker -- learning the language by immersion instead of through a book -- might conclude that "hope" and "expect" require the particle "to" after them, whereas "will" does not. By that inference, the "to" is a function of the verb that precedes it and not of the verb that follows it. And the fact that such an inference is even possible casts doubt in my mind on the &#39;absolute truth&#39; of the notion that the infinitive is a single grammatical unit.

[post=279916]Quoted post[/post]​

Regardless of whether or not one understands the grammatical principle, that principle still stands. One who learns English by imitation might well think that the sentence, "Where is it at?" is correct because he hears it all the time. The fact that he might infer such doesn&#39;t negate the &#39;absolute truth&#39; that it is grammatically wrong. In your example, the infinitive to receive is used like a verbal noun: it is the direct object of the verb hope. Without the particle to, it ceases to be in the infinitive mood. Receive without the infinitive particle no longer functions like a noun, and a verb cannot stand as the object of a preposition, so to is clearly needed to change the function of the verb that follows it. Just because people can reach conclusions about language without studying the grammar involved doesn&#39;t mean that their conclusions are sound. The infinitive must be preceded by to, or it&#39;s no infinitive. That&#39;s what makes the two parts of an infinitive a single grammatical unit.

 

[Kimahri]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Feb 4 2005, 12:04 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Feb 4 2005, 12:04 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-mindseye@Feb 4 2005, 01:14 AM
You claim that the infinitive "functions as a single grammatical unit", but I think even that&#39;s open to debate.  If I&#39;m certain about a future event, I say I will receive my PhD&#33;, but if I&#39;m less certain about it, I might say I hope to receive my PhD&#33;.  Traditional grammar teaches that in the first example, the verb is &#39;will receive&#39; (but we don&#39;t mind splitting that with, for example, I will gladly receive my PhD&#33;) and that in the second example, the verb is &#39;hope&#39;.  But a naive speaker -- learning the language by immersion instead of through a book -- might conclude that "hope" and "expect" require the particle "to" after them, whereas "will" does not.  By that inference, the "to" is a function of the verb that precedes it and not of the verb that follows it.  And the fact that such an inference is even possible casts doubt in my mind on the &#39;absolute truth&#39; of the notion that the infinitive is a single grammatical unit.

[post=279916]Quoted post[/post]​

Regardless of whether or not one understands the grammatical principle, that principle still stands. One who learns English by imitation might well think that the sentence, "Where is it at?" is correct because he hears it all the time. The fact that he might infer such doesn&#39;t negate the &#39;absolute truth&#39; that it is grammatically wrong. In your example, the infinitive to receive is used like a verbal noun: it is the direct object of the verb hope. Without the particle to, it ceases to be in the infinitive mood. Receive without the infinitive particle no longer functions like a noun, and a verb cannot stand as the object of a preposition, so to is clearly needed to change the function of the verb that follows it. Just because people can reach conclusions about language without studying the grammar involved doesn&#39;t mean that their conclusions are sound. The infinitive must be preceded by to, or it&#39;s no infinitive. That&#39;s what makes the two parts of an infinitive a single grammatical unit.

[post=279960]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]



Thanks. I&#39;ve just been reminded why I failed English.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by mindseye@Feb 4 2005, 01:14 AM


I&#39;ll cite a source, though. From The American Heritage Book of English Usage, 1996:

The only rationale for condemning the construction is based on a false analogy with Latin. The thinking is that because the Latin infinitive is a single word, the English infinitive should be treated as if it were a single unit. But English is not Latin, and people split infinitives all the time without giving it a thought.

Exactly my point: English is not Latin. English is a Germanic language, so look at the Germanic languages for guidance. In some Germanic languages the infinitive is two separate words, but in ALL Germanic languages the infinitive is a distinct mood of the verb, and the infinitive form is a single unit. That would include English. People split infinitives all the time time without giving it a thought. Yeah, and they also spell words &#39;definately&#39;, &#39;tounge&#39;, &#39;thier&#39;, &#39;rediculous&#39;, etc. Splitting infinitives will cost you as many points as misspelled words in an English class.

Incidentally, the book goes on to boldly give examples of split infinitives and their &#39;acceptability&#39;:

&#39;To boldly give?&#39; You split an infinitive&#33; :lol:

 

[PonyPete]

Originally posted by Kimahri@Feb 4 2005, 04:14 AM
Thanks. I&#39;ve just been reminded why I failed English.

[post=279964]Quoted post[/post]​

And I understood every word. I guess that&#39;s why I&#39;m getting A&#39;s in Mr. N&#39;s English class. I wish my physics and trig teachers explained shit as well. That&#39;s where I&#39;m having trouble. Everyone has his forte.

 

[BuffMusicIdol]

I am slightly bedazzled. I feel a bit quizzical and delighted at how an introduction including an 11 inch penis went to a long rant about English.

(Sigh.)

Humanity doesn&#39;t conform to much, does it.

Thanks, it was fun. I still haven&#39;t a clue about what you were all talking (about).

Never end a sentence with a preposition and other things I learned in 6th grade.

Now where will you all take it from here?



:wacko: ^_^

 

[Kimahri]

Originally posted by BuffMusicIdol@Feb 4 2005, 12:59 AM
I am slightly bedazzled. I feel a bit quizzical and delighted at how an introduction including an 11 inch penis went to a long rant about English.

(Sigh.)

Humanity doesn&#39;t conform to much, does it.

Thanks, it was fun. I still haven&#39;t a clue about what you were all talking (about).

Never end a sentence with a preposition and other things I learned in 6th grade.

Now where will you all take it from here?



:wacko: ^_^

[post=279975]Quoted post[/post]​

You ain&#39;t seen nothing yet...we go on some wild tangent rides around here.

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Feb 4 2005, 12:04 AM
Regardless of whether or not one understands the grammatical principle, that principle still stands. One who learns English by imitation might well think that the sentence, "Where is it at?" is correct because he hears it all the time. The fact that he might infer such doesn&#39;t negate the &#39;absolute truth&#39; that it is grammatically wrong. In your example, the infinitive to receive is used like a verbal noun: it is the direct object of the verb hope. Without the particle to, it ceases to be in the infinitive mood. Receive without the infinitive particle no longer functions like a noun, and a verb cannot stand as the object of a preposition, so to is clearly needed to change the function of the verb that follows it. Just because people can reach conclusions about language without studying the grammar involved doesn&#39;t mean that their conclusions are sound. The infinitive must be preceded by to, or it&#39;s no infinitive. That&#39;s what makes the two parts of an infinitive a single grammatical unit.

[post=279960]Quoted post[/post]​

We&#39;re not going to agree on this -- sentences like The fact that he might infer such doesn&#39;t negate the &#39;absolute truth&#39; that it is grammatically wrong. persuade me that you&#39;re very much a prescriptive grammarian. Considering that you acquired English as a second language, that&#39;s probably appropriate. But it&#39;s also surprising that you wrote Just because people can reach conclusions about language without studying the grammar involved doesn&#39;t mean that their conclusions are sound. as a response to my example. A person immersed in a new language is /definitely/ studying that language; through observation and mimicry rather than from reading out of a book, granted, but it&#39;s study of a language from a primary source.

To give you an idea of where I stand on language and grammar, I&#39;ve posted an excerpt from a book called Language Files that deeply influenced how I think about language. (The excerpt is here and represents about 2.5 printed pages.)

I still maintain that the idea of the two-word English infinitive being a "single grammatical unit" is a fallacy perpetuated by prescriptive rules dating back to the 1600&#39;s. And here&#39;s why -- language is our means of conveying thoughts and ideas. It strikes me as more natural for a speaker who&#39;s grasping for exactly the right word to pause at this point in a sentence:

• "I would like to . . . ah . . . clarify my earlier remarks. It was not my intention to . . . um . . . cause embarrassment to any members of the royal family."

than to pause here:

• "If you are hoping . . . er . . .to advance in this company, Mr. Dalrymple, it would behoove you . . . eh . . .to kiss the CEO&#39;s butt at every opportunity."

And if, in fact, it is more natural to pause where I&#39;ve indicated, that would suggest that linguistically, the "to", and the verb which follows it, aren&#39;t a single unit of thought because the "to" is uttered before the thought is even formed in this case. And if they&#39;re separate parts of the thought process, then binding them together in the language cripples its ability to convey thought.

 

[mindseye]

Originally posted by BuffMusicIdol@Feb 4 2005, 12:59 AM
Now where will you all take it from here?

[post=279975]Quoted post[/post]​

Um, guess that answers your question, eh? :wacko:

 

[zzorus]

Incidentally, the book goes on to boldly give examples of split infinitives and their &#39;acceptability&#39;:

&#39;To boldly give?&#39; You split an infinitive&#33; :lol:

[post=279965]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

When I was young, an English teacher made me read Fowler on split infinitives. I got some of the sense then, but only now do I appreciate what he wrote.
The article begins with:

" The English-speaking world may be divided into 1) those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; 2) those who do not know, but care very much; 3) those who know &condemn; 4) those who know and approve; 5) those who know& distinguish"

I won&#39;t quote the rest of the article as it occupies nearly 5 columns.

For those who do not know this gem of a book into which I occasionally dip:
H.W.Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Oxford, 1926 ( I&#39;ve quoted from the 1947 reprint).

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Of course I&#39;m a prescriptive grammarian: I have an MA in English&#33; There are absolutes of grammar, and just because people habitually violate them doesn&#39;t render them invalid. The rules of grammar still stand. There are a few exceptions in certain cases, of course. Winston Churchill once wrote a speech with the sentence, "That is something which I will not put up with." That&#39;s a sentence ending in two prepositions. The proofreader corrected it to, "That is something up with which I will not put." Churchill read his original words rather than the corrected version. Why? Ending a sentence with a preposition is acceptable when the alternative sounds stilted or unnatural. Avoiding a split infinitive doesn&#39;t ordinarily result in awkward wording. For what it&#39;s worth, split infinitives don&#39;t disturb me as much as multiple negatives, &#39;done&#39; used as an auxiliary verb, or dangling participles.

I&#39;ll admit that my English classes are tough. I insist that my students avoid the defects I listed above. I also expect them to be able to use &#39;who&#39; and &#39;whom&#39; correctly. And another point that&#39;s definitely falling by the wayside: I&#39;d be willing to bet that 90% of those who read the following can&#39;t figure out what&#39;s grammatically wrong with it. "Everyone is encouraged to cast their votes." (As my student, Pete had better know what the error is&#33

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Feb 4 2005, 01:59 PM
Of course I&#39;m a prescriptive grammarian: I have an MA in English&#33; There are absolutes of grammar, and just because people habitually violate them doesn&#39;t render them invalid. The rules of grammar still stand. There are a few exceptions in certain cases, of course. Winston Churchill once wrote a speech with the sentence, "That is something which I will not put up with." That&#39;s a sentence ending in two prepositions. The proofreader corrected it to, "That is something up with which I will not put." Churchill read his original words rather than the corrected version. Why? Ending a sentence with a preposition is acceptable when the alternative sounds stilted or unnatural. Avoiding a split infinitive doesn&#39;t ordinarily result in awkward wording. For what it&#39;s worth, split infinitives don&#39;t disturb me as much as multiple negatives, &#39;done&#39; used as an auxiliary verb, or dangling participles.

I&#39;ll admit that my English classes are tough. I insist that my students avoid the defects I listed above. I also expect them to be able to use &#39;who&#39; and &#39;whom&#39; correctly. And another point that&#39;s definitely falling by the wayside: I&#39;d be willing to bet that 90% of those who read the following can&#39;t figure out what&#39;s grammatically wrong with it. "Everyone is encouraged to cast their votes." (As my student, Pete had better know what the error is&#33

[post=280115]Quoted post[/post]​

I am am not sure all the technical terms for this. The setence should read, "Everyone is encouraged to vote." In your sentence which I use all the time myself (Sorry) there are two sets of verbs "is encouraged" and "to vote". I&#39;m not sure but I think the second one is called an infinitive. I just remember that we are supposed to avoid using both of these in the same sentence.

I taught sxith grade English. We didn&#39;t cover this in that grade level.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

I&#39;d be willing to bet that 90% of those who read the following can&#39;t figure out what&#39;s grammatically wrong with it. "Everyone is encouraged to cast their votes." (As my student, Pete had better know what the error is&#33

[post=280115]Quoted post[/post]​

I am am not sure all the technical terms for this. The setence should read, "Everyone is encouraged to vote." In your sentence which I use all the time myself (Sorry) there are two sets of verbs "is encouraged" and "to vote". I&#39;m not sure but I think the second one is called an infinitive. I just remember that we are supposed to avoid using both of these in the same sentence.

I taught sxith grade English. We didn&#39;t cover this in that grade level.

[post=280169]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

There aren&#39;t two sets of verbs. &#39;Votes&#39; here is a noun, not a verb; it is the direct object. There is a grammatically correct way to express it without turning the noun &#39;vote&#39; into a verb form. Take the original sentence, "Everyone is encouraged to cast their votes," and change just two words to correct it. Hint: the error is about non-agreement of number.

 

[jeepwranglerboi]

Everyone is encouraged to vote. Is that correct?