About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 5:52amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
It's not necessarily inconsistent to be annoyed by the noise of something, yet enjoying the service. You could simpy say that the noise is worth the service. It's only inconsistent when you wish to destroy the source of the noise, while at the same time enjoying the service.

For example, when I was in high school, we lived less than a block away from a police station. The sirens in the middle of the night woke me up a lot when we first moved to that house, which, of course, can be very irritating, but I was never upset that there were police station.



Post 1

Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 3:25amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Tibor, dear Tibor:

"Yet, of course, this standard is one to which few of us manage to live up. And an example stares me right here in the face - I detest ending sentences in prepositions, yet that one, right before this one, does just that and is exactly right for it."

You could have avoided ending in a preposition by saying:

"Yet, of course, this standard is one up to which few of us manage to live."

But what kind of pompous rationalism is that?

The "standard" is your mistake, in this instance. The other examples of petty-compromise you proffer are not in that league - they represent appeasement writ small, but appeasement nonetheless. As such, they are vile.

A vileness up with which I shall not put! :-)



Post 2

Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 5:48amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
"A vileness up with which I shall not put! :-)"

Bleah. Why not write "Yet, of course, this standard is one that few of us manage to meet" or "A vileness that I shall not tolerate"?

Wait, Linz wrote that last for effect, didn't he. Maybe I should start drinking coffee...



Post 3

Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 1:44pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Tibor, never mind Linz, he is just showing off his high-school German. The correct sentence (in English) should have been "Yet, of course, this is a standard which few of us manage to live up to".

But grammar aside, I once again enjoyed your illuminating article. I am constantly surprised by the original insights and fresh angles you (and others) come up with on this site- thanks.



Post 4

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 12:31amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The correct sentence (in English) should have been "Yet, of course, this is a standard which few of us manage to live up to". 
Um, isn't that (still) a sentence ending in a preposition?

I believe Linz was right:

"Yet, of course, this standard is one up to which few of us manage to live."
Erica





 




Post 5

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 1:00amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I think it was Winston Churchill who said -- after being teased about this -- something like: "My critics have been saying things up with which I will not put."

;-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/02, 1:01am)




Post 6

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 10:08amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
"Shall not put," if it's in the first person.



Post 7

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 5:02pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Peter,

I will like to thank you for you're cunstructive critisism in my grammer. But tho I ashure you you must be rong and I am rite. You see, I done real good in classes of English. I seen alot of profeshunal ritings to. I dont see any thing rong of what I rite!

;-)

Ed
[Sincerely now: Thanks for the correction, Peter. My prose (?) isn't always "easy on the eyes" -- if you get my drift.]
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/02, 5:04pm)




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 5:12pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The correct sentence (in English) should have been "Yet, of course, this is a standard which few of us manage to live up to".
Erica replied,
Um, isn't that (still) a sentence ending in a preposition?"

I believe Linz was right: "Yet, of course, this standard is one up to which few of us manage to live."
Did Linz say that, Erica? I'm surprised. He's usually pretty literate, and so are you! I can't imagine that you'd ever say something that awkward, yet here you are defending it. :-) In fact, there's nothing wrong with ending a sentence in a preposition. The "grammarians" who made that rule were trying to force the rules of Latin grammar onto English, a Germanic language to which they don't apply.

In his widely used reference, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, H.W. Fowler, the preeminent authority on English grammar, had this to say about that alleged "rule":
It was once a cherished superstition that prepositions must be kept true to their name and placed before the word they govern in spite of the incurable English instinct for putting them late. . . . The fact is that. . . . even now immense pains are sometimes expended in changing spontaneous into artificial English. . . . Those who lay down the universal principle that final prepositions are 'inelegant' are unconsciously trying to deprive the English language of a valuable idiomatic resource, which has been used freely by all our greatest writers except those whose instinct for English idiom has been overpowered by notions of correctness derived from Latin standards. The legitimacy of the prepositional ending in literary English must be uncompromisingly maintained. . . . In avoiding the forbidden order, unskillful handlers of words often fall into real blunders. . . . (473-474)

- Bill



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 8:07pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bill is absolutely correct. Indeed, over time languages can evolve from using prepositions to postpositions and using what are called preverbs to adverbs.

Languages are typologically classified as VO (verb-object) or OV (object-verb) in their word order. (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans p 277) Classical proto-Indo-European and Latin as well as most old Indo-European dialects are OV in order. Ego puellam amo. - "I the-girl-accusative love." Object-Verb languages usually have the order noun-postposition, adjective-noun and object-verb. Japanese and Turkish which are distant relatives of the Indo-European tongues are verb-final and use postpositions, Saying such things as I Mary-to John-of book give. / I give John's book to Mary. While classical Latin was rather strictly prepositional in order, it still retained the older OV word order in most cases. But most modern Romance languages have transformed into prepositional and VO order. Je vois le chien dans la plage - literally "I see the dog on the beach." Old Latin phrases exist such as Porta ab iit "The door-out he-went" which later became iit ab porta. (p 312. idem)

Germanic languages have also mostly transformed into a verb-second word order in main phrases, but traces of the verb final order remain. Likewise, High German is prepositional in oprder, but some prepositions can be used in postpositional order, such as entgegen "against" which usually follows its object. In poetic or archaic English one can still say such things as "He went the whole day through."

Given that postpositions in Latin are archaic and were only found in verb final constructions, Latin rules could be formulated OpV as prohibiting ending sentences in prepositions. But English is not a Romance language, and as it is still transitioning to a fully VO order (VO languages have adjectives after the noun, not before as in English) the prevalence of verb constructions with postpositions is quite normal and to be expected.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/02, 11:21pm)




Post 10

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 10:45pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Geez, Ted, how the hell do you know so much?! Seriously! Have you been reading encyclopedias since you were three? :-)

- Bill



Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Thursday, August 2, 2007 - 11:14pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I started reading the ingredients off cereal boxes and condiment bottles during meals at age four. I read Asimov and Sagan and Encyclopedias until age 13. I went to both the school and the township library weekly. I have a very active brain, I am an insomniac, and it is very hard for me not to think. (Seven out of eight of my great-grandparents were drunks - I think due to overactive minds.) Reading calms me down. I always have at hand at least one text on History/Archaeology, one on on Linguistics, one on Biology, one on Philosophy, and some book of fiction at any one time. I read about 100pp per day on average.

Frankly, I think there is something genetic in Danes that makes them intellectuals and natural linguists. (Also, I am likely 1/8 Askenazi Jewish.) All my Danish ancestors were multilingual. I was exposed to Ruthenian and Spanish at a young age. It also helps that I was brought up by rational parents who spoke to me as an adult, that my father was Jesuit schooled and had the idea of a Renaissance man in mind for me as a child. He taught me the rudiments of algebra and valence chemistry as a second grader. My parents never once refused to explain any question I put to them or ever implied that questions don't have answers. Finally, As a bisexual raised in a multilingual environment I was always passionate about the philosophy and biology of human nature and also about phenomena that show evolutionary development over time, whether that be organisms, languages, corporations, nations, religions or other entities that can be described using family tree diagrams. Although I was a freethinker at 13 and an atheist at 16 I attended Mass weekly and paid strict attention to the readings and sermons and performed on them what Rand called Philosophical Detection. Not only could I tell you exactly what the priest had said, I could also tell you where he was right and where he must be wrong.

To me what is most important is not native talent - of which I do have a lot - but how a child is taught to use what he has and how as an adult one never accepts an answer unless one fully understands and integrates it into his entire scope of knowledge. Memorization without integration is the mind destroyer. Again, there's quite a huge amount of things that I don't know, but I do know my limits and I know where to look if I need to. I think most people's potential as a child is much higher than society pretends. Much of growing up seems to consist in self-censorship and killing one's curiosity in order to fit in. Many people are whizzes at sports trivia or other matters. Even they don't shut their minds off entirely - they just channel their energies into less threatening and less fruitful matters.

I very much appreciate the compliment.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/03, 8:28am)




Post 12

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 9:39amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bill and Ted,

Did Linz say that, Erica? I'm surprised. He's usually pretty literate, and so are you! I can't imagine that you'd ever say something that awkward, yet here you are defending it. :-) (Bill)

Actually, I did almost say in my post (which I never thought would revive this old thread to this degree! :-) that the sentence I thought was correct was, in fact, "unwieldy, but correct."

I always thought that the "no ending sentences with a preposition" rule was true, but I also always felt that to say it "right" meant sounding, well, like the sentence of Linz's I defended. And who the hell wants to sound like that? And no, it's not how I usually speak, but I do try to respect the rules I was taught when writing. (Most of the time.)

To discover that I can, in fact, end a sentence with a preposition lifts a weight off my shoulders. Thanks for the information, you guys.

Erica

(Not sorry she revived this thread.)




Post 13

Friday, August 3, 2007 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I started reading the ingredients off cereal boxes and condiment bottles during meals at age four. I read Asimov and Sagan and Encyclopedias until age 13.
See! I knew it. I ain't so dumb!

Oh, and Erica, "ain't" is grammatically correct as well, at least as long as it's used the way I did -- as a contraction for "am not." Ted and I discussed this on a previous thread some time ago.

- Bill



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.