Author Topic: New column-type thingy (Read 107204 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #50 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:06:44 AM »

Quote

I disagree with you on fewer and less, though.

Care to elaborate?

rivka · « **Reply #51 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:21:45 AM »

I think it is a useful distinction.

Then again, I think losing the subjunctive is a crime against humanity . . .

Porter · « **Reply #52 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:25:09 AM »

Rivka -- I can't think of any situation where that distinction gives added clarity. Could you give me an example?

rivka · « **Reply #53 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:27:42 AM »

Not offhand.

Jonathon · « **Reply #54 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:32:48 AM »

I guess I just don't see what it adds to the language to specify whether something is discrete or not. Plus, we don't make the distinction when talking about more of something. How useful is that?

rivka · « **Reply #55 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:40:23 AM »

You're right.

We should.

Jonathon · « **Reply #56 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:40:45 AM »

And just so you know, I'm not trying to pick on you or bait you or anything. I just honestly don't understand what's useful about such distinctions. I could understand if someone said they wanted to hang on to it for tradition's sake or some such, but that doesn't feel like a valid argument, I suppose. Really, I want to understand where prescriptivists are coming from. I want to know if there is really any evidence that this is a useful distinction.

rivka · « **Reply #57 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:41:53 AM »

Quote

And just so you know, I'm not trying to pick on you or bait you or anything.

I know.

Jonathon · « **Reply #58 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:42:22 AM »

Quote

You're right.

We should.

But why should we? What does it add to communication to express the ideas "more milk" and "more people" with different words instead of using more for both?

rivka · « **Reply #59 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:43:50 AM »

I find myself unable to express why. Probably if we hadn't lost some of the nuances of language along the way I'd be able to find the right words.

Porter · « **Reply #60 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:45:40 AM »

Quote

Not offhand.

Like Jonathon, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but what was the usefulness you were referring to when you said you think it's a useful distinction?

Jonathon · « **Reply #61 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:50:43 AM »

Quote

I find myself unable to express why. Probably if we hadn't lost some of the nuances of language along the way I'd be able to find the right words.

I'm not sure how serious you're being, but I don't really buy that. Are you really saying that Old English speakers had more power to communicate than we have today, and that Proto-Indo-European speakers had more power to communicate than Old English speakers?

rivka · « **Reply #62 on:** April 12, 2007, 11:50:38 AM »

Quote

I'm not sure how serious you're being

*cheerfully* Not particularly.

And I'm not terribly invested in this. While I do think we should keep the fewer/less distinction, if it becomes accepted not to (as "hopefully" officially now means what it did not used to), I will grit my teeth and bear it.

Meanwhile, I will cheerfully gripe about "10 items or less" signs.

Jonathon · « **Reply #63 on:** April 12, 2007, 05:41:03 PM »

*sigh*

I have to admit that I find it a little frustrating that I can never get a clear answer to these sorts of questions.

rivka · « **Reply #64 on:** April 12, 2007, 07:33:55 PM »

I find it mildly frustrating that I cannot seem to express the reason for my conviction.

Life is pain.

Brinestone · « **Reply #65 on:** August 05, 2007, 05:48:36 PM »

I just wrote a column on the English side. When Jonathon created the English blog, the idea was for both of us to post there, but until now, I haven't been motivated enough to actually write something. Well, now I have.

rivka · « **Reply #66 on:** August 05, 2007, 06:21:53 PM »

They compared it to the SAT?

That takes chutzpah.

pooka · « **Reply #67 on:** August 06, 2007, 03:44:23 AM »

I don't know that grammarians make mistakes so much as that it's an artform where interpretations may vary.

Brinestone · « **Reply #68 on:** August 06, 2007, 07:09:25 AM »

No, there were definite mistakes in this. She had some opinions I disagree with, but there were some clear things (the extra comma, the missed passives, the inconsistency about redundancy) that were objectively wrong with the quiz.

pooka · « **Reply #69 on:** August 06, 2007, 08:04:26 AM »

The extra comma (which I didn't see) is obviously wrong. And she should have been more careful about the passives, though I would have to look at it again and see if they were passive or participial in nature. But you said yourself that redundancy is very contextual.

I wonder if she was relying on Microsoft Word to indentify passive.

Jonathon · « **Reply #70 on:** October 01, 2007, 11:26:26 AM »

*bump*

I just wrote something for the first time in several months. You should all be so proud of me.

link

Porter · « **Reply #71 on:** October 01, 2007, 11:32:05 AM »

Woah. That sure looks different than how I remember it.

Jonathon · « **Reply #72 on:** October 01, 2007, 11:39:43 AM »

I redesigned it a few months ago, thinking that maybe that'd prompt me to write more. We can all see how well that worked.

pooka · « **Reply #73 on:** October 01, 2007, 12:04:29 PM »

"Buzzord fixed passive wording."

There, I really fixed it.

Porter · « **Reply #74 on:** October 01, 2007, 12:14:03 PM »