Author Topic: Quotes from work (Read 188983 times)

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #425 on:** January 12, 2009, 10:25:37 AM »

In fact, come to think of it, I don't think I said "pregnant" much at all, referring to myself or us. I think I preferred, "expecting" for both.

Noemon · « **Reply #426 on:** January 12, 2009, 10:31:57 AM »

And that's entirely different.

The Genuine · « **Reply #427 on:** January 12, 2009, 10:52:29 AM »

Quote

Quote
Although my personal pet peeve is when people say "we're pregnant." No... no, you're not.
Do you find it annoying when the woman says that?

I do.

And I also love the Spanish false cognate "embarazada." In certain situations of pregnancy, saying "we're embarassed" is probably a lot more useful in a lot more situations than saying "we're pregnant."

Jonathon · « **Reply #428 on:** January 15, 2009, 08:26:16 AM »

The author of the piece I'm currently editing has a really annoying habit of omitting that whenever possible. He writes sentences like "Smalling adds Joseph Smith told them he had . . .". Sure, there's nothing grammatically wrong with it, because English allows omission of relative that in certain cases, but he does it a lot in cases that cause (temporary) misparsing. I've probably inserted one or two per page, and I'm on page 54 now.

The most annoying part of the piece, though, is the fact that the the body of the article is 38 pages, but the notes take up another 78 pages. I came across one note that went on for three and a half pages. Note to authors: if it's important enough to include in the article, put it in the body of the text where people will read it and where it will lend support to your thesis. If it's not that important, briefly mention the issue and then refer readers to some other sources that cover it in more detail. Heck, why not take all those tangential discussions in the endnotes and make separate pieces out of them if they're so important.

The Genuine · « **Reply #429 on:** January 15, 2009, 10:26:51 AM »

That's a good general rule for the kind of stuff you're probably writing, but I am compelled to add:

Unlike law journals, which have many footnotes, legal briefs to real courts use in-line citations. So while we do sometimes use footnotes to add a little tangential point, we also sometimes drop a footnote as a way of actually highlighting an important point (because of the visual offset).

We'd never do a lengthy one though (so I'm not actually disagreeing with you, just adding my two valuable cents). Usually a snide comment like "While opposing counsel has made much of blah blah blah, it is telling that they previously blah blah blah."

Jonathon · « **Reply #430 on:** February 18, 2009, 01:44:31 PM »

The editor before me took this sentence:

Quote

Rather than requiring justice or compensation, a vendetta as seen in the concept of "an eye for an eye," this ransom functions as a substitute that allows the injured party to extend mercy and be reconciled.

And turned it into this:

Quote

Rather than requiring justice or compensation, a vendetta is seen in the concept of "an eye for an eye." This ransom functions as a substitute that allows the injured party to extend mercy and be reconciled.

The first one was awkward, but the second is simply ungrammatical and nonsensical. Argh.

The Genuine · « **Reply #431 on:** February 18, 2009, 01:51:49 PM »

I have have no idea what either one is trying to say.

Jonathon · « **Reply #432 on:** February 18, 2009, 05:25:47 PM »

Apparently my coworker didn't either. It doesn't help that they're out of context. It's talking about the law of sacrifice in the Old Testament. It probably makes more sense if you take out the awkward parenthetical clause beginning with "a vendetta".

The Genuine · « **Reply #433 on:** February 18, 2009, 05:35:10 PM »

Indeed.

rivka · « **Reply #434 on:** February 18, 2009, 06:32:39 PM »

Funny. I knew exactly what it was about.

Jonathon · « **Reply #435 on:** February 18, 2009, 06:47:00 PM »

As you should.

rivka · « **Reply #436 on:** February 18, 2009, 07:43:36 PM »

Shall we count the number of conceptual issues I have with the sentence, above and beyond its glaring usage/grammar/etc. problems?

Jonathon · « **Reply #437 on:** February 18, 2009, 07:58:37 PM »

Nah, that's okay. It just struck me as funny that a Jew instantly knew what it was about, even out of context.

rivka · « **Reply #438 on:** February 18, 2009, 08:42:33 PM »

It helps that this Jew has had previous discussions with Christians on related topics.

The Genuine · « **Reply #439 on:** February 18, 2009, 08:59:39 PM »

Why would it take a conversation with a Christian (New Testament person) for a Jew (Old Testament person) to understand an Old Testament passage? What's up with this passage? Can I get a citation?

(In advance, both thanks, and apologies for my ignorance.)

Jonathon · « **Reply #440 on:** February 18, 2009, 09:06:11 PM »

It would probably take a conversation with a Christian to understand a Christian interpretation of it.

I'm not sure of the exact passage the author was referencing, but she talked about Isaiah 53 a lot, so it might have been in there somewhere. If you're really curious, I can check tomorrow.

The Genuine · « **Reply #441 on:** February 18, 2009, 09:27:47 PM »

Oh the pain! I accidently read Isaiah 52 in my quest for 53! It burns! Too much Bible!!!

Huh. I don't see it in 53, though I can see how that part (chapter?) would relate to the analysis. That part in 53:10 is a bit scary where it says (King James) "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him."

Jonathon · « **Reply #442 on:** February 18, 2009, 09:31:55 PM »

You aren't looking for the quote that I posted, are you? Because that's the author's commentary on a particular passage. And now that I think about it, it might have been in Exodus or Leviticus. You'd better read both of those just to be safe.

The Genuine · « **Reply #443 on:** February 18, 2009, 09:36:58 PM »

No, I wasn't looking for the "an eye for an eye" bit, just something about retribution in 53. Without more context, I doubt I could ever find it in my lifetime. I've never made it through the entire Bible or Book of Mormon. Not start-to-finish, anyway. You think legal writing's bad???

rivka · « **Reply #444 on:** February 18, 2009, 09:54:17 PM »

Quote

It would probably take a conversation with a Christian to understand a Christian interpretation of it.

Bingo.

Annie Subjunctive · « **Reply #445 on:** February 19, 2009, 12:48:04 PM »

Ok, this one is awkward, but I wrote it. What's the most effective way to say what I'm trying to say here?

Quote

Taking cues from the classroom environment researchers, we seek to place the current extant body of knowledge within a metaphorical framework that views computer technology as one of many factors in an ecosystem.

Can I say "currant extant?" Is there a better way to say that? Does the sentence make sense? While it's not my research question, it is in a fairly key spot in my introduction.

Jonathon · « **Reply #446 on:** February 19, 2009, 01:03:32 PM »

"Extant" implies that it is something that has survived while other things have been lost or destroyed, such as extant manuscript fragments. I think it's just fine with "current".

Jonathon · « **Reply #447 on:** February 20, 2009, 08:06:39 AM »

If you're still interested, Jesse, the passage referenced by that quote is Exodus 21:29–30.

The Genuine · « **Reply #448 on:** February 20, 2009, 10:28:08 AM »

Quote

29: But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

30: If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.

29: So if my ox kills someone, and I'm responsible for not keeping it in its pen, both the ox and I can be put to death. That's clear enough.

30: I'm not sure I get this. Does it mean the owner has to give all of his money instead of being put to death?

Jonathon · « **Reply #449 on:** February 20, 2009, 11:22:08 AM »

I don't see where you're getting the "all".