Author Topic: Quotes from work (Read 192714 times)

Mucus · « **Reply #825 on:** October 20, 2010, 10:30:43 AM »

It's like a Stargate, or Iconian portal, or Taelon ID.
Pretty handy if you can iron out the bugs ... which could take anywhere from one or two episodes to whole seasons.

Jonathon · « **Reply #826 on:** October 20, 2010, 01:46:42 PM »

I'm editing something about the renovation of the Tabernacle on Temple Square, and it talks about how the seating capacity was actually reduced, thus expanding the spacing between the rows. Then it describes the new seating as more accommodating than the original seating, which seems backwards to me. "More accommodating" says to me that it seats more people, not that it seats fewer people but that they have more room.

Thoughts?

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #827 on:** October 20, 2010, 02:04:10 PM »

More comfortable? Or maybe they mean more accommodating to people with disabilities or, you know, fatness.

Jonathon · « **Reply #828 on:** October 20, 2010, 02:14:15 PM »

Not really more comfortable, because they're still hard wooden pews, and not really more accessible either. I think he simply means it in the sense of "more spacious", but it seemed odd to me because the article keeps talking about how the Church has always struggled to provide large enough meetinghouses for large conferences. Then the Conference Center was built, which seats about three or four times the number of people as the Tabernacle, and the Tabernacle was renovated and its capacity slightly reduced, so in that sense it's actually less accommodating now than before.

Maybe I'm overthinking this.

rivka · « **Reply #829 on:** October 20, 2010, 04:17:19 PM »

It may accommodate fewer people, but it is more accommodating to each of those people.

Jonathon · « **Reply #830 on:** October 20, 2010, 04:26:44 PM »

Right. But my natural tendency is to read it as saying that the new seating accommodates more people, when in fact it accommodates fewer. The context ultimately makes it clear, but I wondered if it actually said what he meant.

Maybe I should've included the actual sentence in context.

BlackBlade · « **Reply #831 on:** October 20, 2010, 05:00:17 PM »

I don't think accommodate must be limited to a numerical sense, though I've certainly heard it used numerously that way. Still, the word feels like it should be able to accommodate (no play on words intended) the other meaning where comfort is discussed.

rivka · « **Reply #832 on:** October 20, 2010, 05:26:45 PM »

This is really splitting hairs (and is probably just me anyway), but to me, "accommodates" implies number while "accommodating" implies ease/comfort.

Porter · « **Reply #833 on:** October 20, 2010, 06:04:01 PM »

Quote

More comfortable? Or maybe they mean more accommodating to people with disabilities or, you know, fatness.

Having sat in the SLC Tabernacle, I'm going to with "or, you know, knees".

Quote

Not really more comfortable, because they're still hard wooden pews

Increasing the space between those wooden pews will definitely make sitting there for any length of time more comfortable.

Quote

This is really splitting hairs (and is probably just me anyway), but to me, "accommodates" implies number while "accommodating" implies ease/comfort.

That's how it is for me too.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #834 on:** October 20, 2010, 09:51:33 PM »

Pew is a funny word. It always makes me think that the seat smells bad.

Jonathon · « **Reply #835 on:** October 20, 2010, 09:56:57 PM »

BlackBlade · « **Reply #836 on:** October 21, 2010, 06:45:40 AM »

Ahhhhhh....

Jonathon · « **Reply #837 on:** October 21, 2010, 09:58:19 AM »

Here's the full sentence in its unedited glory:

Quote

Though more accommodating than the originals, President Hinckley still quipped about the new seating at the building's rededication, "As you've already discovered, the new benches are just as hard as the old ones were."

I decided to leave "accommodating" and change it as follows:

Quote

Though the new pews are more accommodating, President Hinckley still quipped at the building's rededication, "As you've already discovered, the new benches are just as hard as the old ones were."

But later in the article, the author includes this quote from the Church's Presiding Bishop:

Quote

We hope in a very inauspicious way to structurally strengthen the building.

I certainly hope not.

The problem is what to do with the quote. If I leave it in, both Bishop Burton and the author sound stupid. If I put in a (sic), the author saves some face but Bishop Burton's malapropism is highlighted. If I delete "inauspicious" and insert "inconspicuous" in brackets, it still draws too much attention to itself. I might have to just delete the quote.

dkw · « **Reply #838 on:** October 21, 2010, 10:12:39 AM »

Can you contact the author and ask if he meant to type "inconspicuous"? If he says yes, then you're all clear, if he says "No, I'm sure the Bishop said 'inauspicious,' then leave the quote out.

Jonathon · « **Reply #839 on:** October 21, 2010, 10:18:48 AM »

I already know the original quote said "inauspicious". The original is in this article, at the start of the paragraph just above the third picture.

I'd already decided to cut it before I saw your post, but it's nice to have some confirmation.

rivka · « **Reply #840 on:** October 27, 2010, 04:13:08 PM »

(This is posted just to make Jonathon kvell.)

The question posted to the listserv was:

Quote

Colleagues -

Recently the language in our catalog referring to student classification was challenged.

We classify any student with "less than 30 credits completed" as a freshmen. However, some on campus feel the text should be "fewer than 30 credits completed".

I always assumed that because we're referring to a unit of measurement, less than was appropriate. But I haven't dug too deep into proper usage of less vs. fewer.

What say you?

Several responses gave standard defenses of "fewer". I posted as follows:

Quote

Once, I too was an unrepentant prescriptivist. “Less coffee, fewer donuts!” I cried.

Then I started hanging around with linguists and reading the Language Log blog. See http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004005.html

Summary: It’s more complicated than that. And there’s nothing wrong with saying “less than 30 credits”.

Jonathon · « **Reply #841 on:** October 27, 2010, 04:31:21 PM »

I'll even overlook the fact that you misspelled my name.

rivka · « **Reply #842 on:** October 27, 2010, 05:04:16 PM »

(Student whose file I was dealing with earlier today spells it the other way.)

Jonathon · « **Reply #843 on:** October 28, 2010, 02:04:27 PM »

Quote

Upon entering the building, the entry is floored in white marble, and the walls are veneered with large blocks of golden travertine marble, both extracted from Utah quarries.

Upon exiting the building, however, the entry ceases to exist.

rivka · « **Reply #844 on:** October 28, 2010, 04:32:28 PM »

Well, DUH. On the way out, it's the exit.

Jonathon · « **Reply #845 on:** October 28, 2010, 04:41:58 PM »

Oh, psh. You're going to make me ruin the joke by explaining it.

According to the prescriptive rule, the understood subject of a participial clause is the subject of the main clause. Ergo "Upon the entry's entering the building, the entry is floored in white marble. . . ." And when the entry exits the building, presumably it ceases to be an entry at all.

rivka · « **Reply #846 on:** October 28, 2010, 05:02:56 PM »

Quote from: Jonathon on October 28, 2010, 04:41:58 PM

Oh, psh. You're going to make me ruin the joke by explaining it.

No. I'm going to ignore the fact that I know your point is valid in favor of commenting on the literal meaning of what you said.

Jonathon · « **Reply #847 on:** October 28, 2010, 05:06:07 PM »

Hmm. Now I'm trying to figure out how your meaning is more literal than mine.

rivka · « **Reply #848 on:** November 01, 2010, 05:13:04 PM »

Today is Nov. 1. That means that the final versions of most of the regs that were released for negotiated rulemaking 60+ days ago have now been released by the Dept. of Education. The majority will go into effect July 1.

I hate reading those things undigested, and will wait the few days/weeks it will take the various analysts to come out with annotated and charted versions. Meanwhile, from one of those analysts:

Quote

As part of today's vocabulary lesson from the US Department of Education, we turn to page 173 of the final regulations. The word of the day is "eleemosynary":

"the institution being authorized specifically as an
educational institution, not merely as a business or
an eleemosynary organization"

Pronounced el-uh-mo-sin-ary, it means "supported by charitable contributions" or "dependent on charity".

Nighthawk · « **Reply #849 on:** November 01, 2010, 07:27:06 PM »

Well it is the US Government... They can make up any word they want, right?

Old Anecdote of the Day:

One day the Director of Marketing had to do a presentation to the board of directors of IBM Latin America. He had not written the presentation himself, but rather had a lackey prepare it for him and send him the document. He took it to Kinkos and spent upwards of $200 to get multiple copies printed on heavy stock, bound and readied for distribution.

Unbeknownst to him, there use to be a Microsoft Word virus called the "Wazzu Virus"... It was a macro virus that would pick a random word in a Word document and replace it with the word "wazzu".

He spent thirty minutes during his presentation trying to come up with an adequate explanation of what the "Wazzu Factor" was and how it related to international shipping.

I didn't have the heart to tell him.