Author Topic: Quotes from work (Read 180756 times)

rivka · « **Reply #1125 on:** February 22, 2012, 08:08:14 PM »

Indeed.

BlackBlade · « **Reply #1126 on:** February 22, 2012, 09:06:59 PM »

Quote from: rivka on February 22, 2012, 08:08:14 PM

Indeed.

War certainly seems to be a form of "subsidized elimination".

Jonathon · « **Reply #1127 on:** February 24, 2012, 11:52:02 AM »

I'm working on a book whose author apparently hates expletive (or dummy) it. I'm constantly running across sentences like "When Garn finished his translation of the Voice of Warning is not known." It's not only stilted, but it makes for garden-path sentences. I expect the "when" to start a dependent clause before the main clause of the sentence. Instead that dependent clause ends up being the subject. I think it's much more natural to say "It is not known when Garn finished his translation of the Voice of Warning."

fugu13 · « **Reply #1128 on:** February 25, 2012, 07:44:53 PM »

I think "No one knows when Garn finished his translation of the Voice of Warning" or "There's no conclusive evidence for when Garn finished his translation of the Voice of Warning" are even more natural and readable (though believe me I understand a lot of academics would have apoplexy over using such phrasings).

pooka · « **Reply #1129 on:** March 01, 2012, 09:55:23 AM »

"Precisely when..." ?

Jonathon · « **Reply #1130 on:** March 01, 2012, 11:08:48 AM »

pooka · « **Reply #1131 on:** March 01, 2012, 03:33:49 PM »

Putting an adverb before "When" signals that the when is an adverb, not the other kind of when.

Jonathon · « **Reply #1132 on:** March 01, 2012, 04:50:36 PM »

I don't think it does. Conjunctive when can still take adverbs.

Quote from: fugu13 on February 25, 2012, 07:44:53 PM

I think "No one knows when Garn finished his translation of the Voice of Warning" or "There's no conclusive evidence for when Garn finished his translation of the Voice of Warning" are even more natural and readable (though believe me I understand a lot of academics would have apoplexy over using such phrasings).

I think the second is rather wordy, and though the first is okay, I think the passive voice works better, because the agent in the sentence is (mostly) irrelevant. Neither would cause me apoplexy, though.

fugu13 · « **Reply #1133 on:** March 01, 2012, 07:32:42 PM »

Heh, yeah, the academics in question weren't intended to include you. I just have many memories of academics who seemed to apply an approach where if a sentence could possibly be rephrased to use "it is", it should be, along with banishing the word "I" (and usually "we").

Jonathon · « **Reply #1134 on:** March 01, 2012, 08:50:45 PM »

I recently worked on a book in which the author almost always avoided the first person and instead referred to himself in the third person as "the author." Ugh. So awkward.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #1135 on:** March 02, 2012, 01:02:37 AM »

In my documentation at work, I refer to myself as "this nurse" or "this supervisor". It's the convention.

"The patient refused to take his medication and told this nurse to go to hell."

Marianne Dashwood · « **Reply #1136 on:** March 02, 2012, 07:30:41 AM »

Quote from: Jonathon on March 01, 2012, 08:50:45 PM

I recently worked on a book in which the author almost always avoided the first person and instead referred to himself in the third person as "the author." Ugh. So awkward.

I know that's kind of expected in writing for some journals. But a whole book would be ridikalous.

Jonathon · « **Reply #1137 on:** March 02, 2012, 10:10:49 AM »

I know it's expected in some fields. I still think it's dumb.

BlackBlade · « **Reply #1138 on:** March 02, 2012, 12:10:06 PM »

Quote from: Jonathon on March 02, 2012, 10:10:49 AM

I know it's expected in some fields. I still think it's dumb.

You mean, "This linguist thinks it's dumb".

*ducks*

Marianne Dashwood · « **Reply #1139 on:** March 02, 2012, 12:50:10 PM »

Quote from: Jonathon on March 02, 2012, 10:10:49 AM

I know it's expected in some fields. I still think it's dumb.

If they do it enough, won't that become standard use, and shouldn't we be OK with that?

Jonathon · « **Reply #1140 on:** March 02, 2012, 01:10:57 PM »

Oh noes! You have caught me in a contradiction!

Porter · « **Reply #1141 on:** March 02, 2012, 06:23:35 PM »

Owe nose!

Dobie · « **Reply #1142 on:** March 05, 2012, 02:34:04 PM »

Oh nose!

Jonathon · « **Reply #1143 on:** September 10, 2012, 12:23:45 PM »

"Every female who has not been placed, can, by proper arrangements, demand to be married."

From a Mormon newsletter from the 1850s.

rivka · « **Reply #1144 on:** September 10, 2012, 01:09:47 PM »

To anyone in particular? Was there a lottery?

Jonathon · « **Reply #1145 on:** September 10, 2012, 01:16:17 PM »

I don't know the real answer, but I like the lottery idea. And I'm amused at the use of the word "placed", as if getting married is no different from getting a job.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #1146 on:** September 11, 2012, 01:52:56 AM »

That's rather awesome to know. Zal's sister and I were talking one evening about how marriage worked in the early Utah days and were wondering how much assignment and persuasion were going on. My then-boyfriend said, "Yeah, how did that work? Did the bishop just pull you aside and tell you that he needs you to take one for Zion?"

BlackBlade · « **Reply #1147 on:** September 11, 2012, 06:38:53 AM »

Quote from: Jonathon on September 10, 2012, 01:16:17 PM

I don't know the real answer, but I like the lottery idea. And I'm amused at the use of the word "placed", as if getting married is no different from getting a job.

Doesn't seem far off from many a marriage in America at that time.

Kinda makes one think about America being the land of opportunity, where a Mormon man can start out with nothing, then start up a small business with one employee, and after a few years of hard work and growth...well, you know.

pooka · « **Reply #1148 on:** September 11, 2012, 04:40:30 PM »

Quote from: Annie Subjunctive on September 11, 2012, 01:52:56 AM

That's rather awesome to know. Zal's sister and I were talking one evening about how marriage worked in the early Utah days and were wondering how much assignment and persuasion were going on. My then-boyfriend said, "Yeah, how did that work? Did the bishop just pull you aside and tell you that he needs you to take one for Zion?"

It happened to someone in my maternal grandfathers line. Like, she was missing many of her teeth. I think they mention that because it was such a Christian undertaking. Though the fourth wife was the nanny, at the insistence of the first two wives. They had hired a dashing young tutor, who started to think about courting her, and the husband was told they wanted to keep her in the family. I'm a descendant of the nanny.

BlackBlade · « **Reply #1149 on:** September 11, 2012, 05:13:51 PM »

My great great grandfather was commanded my Brigham Young to marry a widowed mother and her daughter.

I know right?!