Trivial, but good grief

[y66]

Which Language Rules to Flout. Or Flaunt?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/27/opinion/rfd-language/rfd-language-blog480.jpg

[kenberg]

I am frequently (and for that matter often happily) oblivious to various wars. The link provided above was very interesting to me. I mentioned my view that children learn various rules so that they won't embarrass the family. A further benefit is that it enables them to advance in their profession and in society. A sufficiently talented bridge player, or mathematician, or plumber, can succeed even if he don't talk too good, but learning basic grammar may ease the way.

 

I never did understand about "that" and "which", and after reading the discussion I am still a little confused. I mentioned earlier that I can sometimes recall why Winstons could not taste good like a cigarette should, but I never much thought about it. However, I regard "ask Ann and I" as far, far more basic. I offer the closing song from Guys and Dolls (Stage version, the number was deleted in the film, unfortunately). As I recall, Sister Sara and Adelaide are discussing marriage:

 

Adelaide: You simply got to gamble

Sister Sara: You get no guarantee

Adelaide: Now doesn't that kind of apply to you and I?

Sister Sara: You and me.

Adelaide: Whatever

 

( I just looked it up)

 

Sister Sara and Adelaide come from different social classes, and most people understand that the song quickly pegs them. But I guess Adelaide could hobnob happily with Mitt, a fact that (or maybe "a fact which") weakens my point.

 

I have never heard a musical number address confusion over "that" and "which". It's a whole different level, and most people in most situations are free to muddle the distinction. If you write a book, the editor will put it the way he wants it. That's why he earns the big bucks.

[y66]

Just stumbled on this discussion of that and which in the Bridge World Style Manual:

 

B. Often Mishandled Grammatical Matters

 

B1. Case of gerunds ... text omitted by y66

 

B2. Clauses with relative pronouns as subject

 

(a) When the clause is essential to the fundamental meaning of the sentence, use "that" as the relative pronoun and no separating punctuation.

 

(b) When the clause is inessential to the fundamental meaning of the sentence, use "which" (or "who" if the antecedent is human) as the relative pronoun and set off the clause with commas.

 

[Elvis' guitar that survived the trip is on display in Graceland. (Perhaps his other guitars were appropriated by the aliens. clause with relative pronoun: "that survived the trip")(presumably, the sentence would mean something different--that there was only one guitar in the first place--if "that survived the trip" were omitted, hence the clause is essential)]

 

[Elvis' guitar, which survived the trip, is on display at Graceland. (Apparently, he had only one guitar at the time of the abduction. clause with relative pronoun: "which survived the trip")("which survived the trip" adds to our knowledge, but the basic meaning of the sentence would remain the same if those words were omitted, hence the clause is inessential)]

 

[Tom and Jerry, who were in reality Simon and Garfunkle, had only one hit record. (clause with relative pronoun: "who were in reality Simon and Garfunkle")]

 

[The spade bid that forced the partnership to slam was dumb. (There were at least two spade bids; the dumb one was the one and only one that forced to slam.)]

 

[The spade bid, which forced the partnership to slam, was dumb. (There was only one spade bid; it happened to force to slam.)]

[gwnn]

"Plusses," "minusses," and "focusses." These always cause my eyes to bleed. I see that they're not incorrect but they just look incredibly ugly. Dutch people love them.

[Zelandakh]

I am fairly sure that you can have foci or focuses but cannot ever remember seeing focusses. For plurals of plus and minus I have seen both one S and two but I think that minusses is technically incorrect.

[gwnn]

I am fairly sure that you can have foci or focuses but cannot ever remember seeing focusses. For plurals of plus and minus I have seen both one S and two but I think that minusses is technically incorrect.

Sorry, I meant the verb 'to focus.'

[Zelandakh]

Again, he/she/it focuses is correct. You get the double-S for focussed and focussing.

[gwnn]

Again, he/she/it focuses is correct. You get the double-S for focussed and focussing.

Yes, I hate those too. I think all three are OK, but they really look ugly.

[Quantumcat]

Yes, I hate those too. I think all three are OK, but they really look ugly.

It is only in American English that the double letters are dropped in some words.

 

I did some reading and found out that the letters are always doubled (in both English and American English) when the preceding syllable is stressed (e.g. occurring, permitting), but that American English drops the doubled letters when the preceding syllable is not stressed (e.g. travelling, cancelling).

 

Words look ugly to me when they are spelled the American way too (it annoys me when Microsoft Word autocorrects 'colour' to 'color' on the uni computers - we can't change the default language so I always add 'colour' to the dictionary) - just depends where you are from :)

[WellSpyder]

It is only in American English that the double letters are dropped in some words.

 

I did some reading and found out that the letters are always doubled (in both English and American English) when the preceding syllable is stressed (e.g. occurring, permitting), but that American English drops the doubled letters when the preceding syllable is not stressed (e.g. travelling, cancelling).

This is nearly, but not quite, my understanding. I think British English also uses undoubled letters where the preceding syllable is not stressed, with the one exception of the letter L, which is always doubled regardless of the stress - hence both your examples where British and American English are different are ones where the relevant letter is an L.

[gwnn]

It is only in American English that the double letters are dropped in some words.

 

I did some reading and found out that the letters are always doubled (in both English and American English) when the preceding syllable is stressed (e.g. occurring, permitting), but that American English drops the doubled letters when the preceding syllable is not stressed (e.g. travelling, cancelling).

 

Words look ugly to me when they are spelled the American way too (it annoys me when Microsoft Word autocorrects 'colour' to 'color' on the uni computers - we can't change the default language so I always add 'colour' to the dictionary) - just depends where you are from :)

I really like double letters but for some reason double s's are just weird. I don't know why. I guess I should have written this in the pet peeve thread instead. Do you really write 'plusses and minusses?'

 

edit: how about busses? eek

Edited October 8, 2012 by gwnn

[kenberg]

Just stumbled on this discussion of that and which in the Bridge World Style Manual:

 

 

 

This is the clearest explanation I have seen. Of course maybe I should say "that I have seen". I suppose "I have seen" qualifies as essential since I am not claiming that there are not other explanations that are clearer. I am only claiming that I have not seen them.

 

I have a lot of "that"s above, they all sound right to me. I am not positive that they are right.

 

This thread has more staying power than I anticipated. I am finding it to be both interesting and educational.

 

For one thing, we see different expectations at play. I quickly bought into, at least partly, the arguments of Hirsch in his book Cultural Literacy. I don't think I am a snob, I really don't, but I do think it is a serious handicap in life to not know some basics. I have mentioned before my embarrassment when I was asked if I wanted to join some friends to see the Monet exhibit. 'Who's Monet?" provided some real chuckles at my expense. I have never actually been reluctant to display my lack of knowledge on any topic whatsoever, but I am pleased that it does not happen so often anymore. So it is with grammar. I expect that anyone who has paid any attention at all growing up knows that "applies to you and I" is wrong, and I think that children should be taught the correct way of speaking, even if "correct" only means "accepted".

 

But there is also a limit. I am currently reading Ken Follett's "Fall of Giants". This is the first book of a historical (an historical if you like) trilogy about the twentieth century. I have gotten to the assassination of the Archduke, and one of the heroic characters speaks of his frustration with diplomats who don't even know where Serbia is. OK, I sort of know, or thought I did (see correctinos below), but don't expect details. Or, in mathematics, on my older daughter's fortieth birthday I quizzed her to see if she still knew the quadratic formula. Sort of, but not exactly. But then I am not prepared to give an impromptu lecture on finding the roots of a cubic so sort of knowing the quadratic formula is satisfactory.

 

In my view there is some basic stuff a person should know, but we also need to accept that there are limits. At a dinner the other night I had someone explain to me the current structure of post-season play in baseball. I think I have it now, sort of. I don't much care.

 

I really believe that the kids in my eighth grade class knew more about grammar than is typical now. Full expertise, in grammar or geography or mathematics, is not to be expected, but I think that tossing failure off as just being cultural differences is a mistake.,

 

Added:

More on limits:

 

Another recent example: I watched Game Change the other night. It's about, as you probably all know, the selection of Sarah Palin as VP candidate. The assistant assigned to help her prepare for battle complains "She doesn't even understand why there are two Koreas". Ok, she is a candidate for the vice-presidency but I imagine that quite a few younger people would be vague on just how this came about. I had an urge to grab the author and ask if s/he could tell me how the two Viet Nams came into existence. I was fifteen when Dien Bien Phu took place but I would be willing to place a fair bet that there are a lot of forty year olds out there who cannot explain either the two Koreas or the two Viet Nams. Going back to Follett's novel, I have only the vaguest understanding of the origins of the first world war.

[blackshoe]

What two Viet Nams? :P

[WellSpyder]

one of the heroic characters speaks of his frustration with diplomats who don't even know where Serbia is. OK, I sort of know, it lies somewhere along the Baltic coast, but don't expect details.

They say it is hard to detect irony on the web, but just in case this comment wasn't ironic it might help to know that the Balkans and the Baltic are not related at all, despite the superficial similarity of the words. The Baltic is a sea in North East Europe. The Balkans (where you will find Serbia) is (are?) an area in South East Europe.....

[helene_t]

oh I didnt catch that one, I was about to say that Serbia is actually not at the adriatic coast

[kenberg]

Actually I was being idiotic, not ironic. But it perhaps makes my point, although not in the way I would most like.

 

I was thinking of the Black Sea, not the Baltic Sea, that part was just mis-speaking. But looking on a map I see that it is not on that coast either. Nor on the Adriatic. Landlocked, I see. Well, live and learn.

 

As mentioned, I am vague about how the first world war got going. But if the diplomats at the time were as clueless about geography as I am, that may have played a role.

 

I am finding Follett's book interesting, and perhaps i will learn something if I pay attention. He has heroes and villains and not much subtlety, but it's a fun read.

[kenberg]

What two Viet Nams? :P

 

 

Yes, there is now only one. This one I know.

[gwnn]

'(...)and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out what happened than I did' - Barack Obama.

[kenberg]

'(...)and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out what happened than I did' - Barack Obama.

 

I missed that! But I put it in the category of there but for the grace of God go I. It's ok.

 

Sometime I should probably try for consistency in my criticisms, but not today.

[barmar]

'(...)and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out what happened than I did' - Barack Obama.

Was that from a written speech or extemporaneous (was it from the debate)? When speaking off the cuff, and under a lot of pressure, glitches like that are common and, I think, excusable. It's not the same as people who habitually misuse pronouns, or can't pronounce "nuclear".

[kenberg]

Csaba may be sleeping, so I'll answer. I am pretty sure this comes from the debate. O was speaking of being at the funeral for the Ambassador and said something along these lines. I didm't pick up on the mangled structure.

 

I agree that as we speak, or at least as I speak, it often needs a little rearranging.

[barmar]

That mistake almost certainly came from having two thoughts in his mind. He was thinking about how he reacted (calling for an investigation -- what he "did") and in how to express his concern over the situation ("no one is more interested"). When this happens, you sometimes start the sentence from one of these thoughts, and then inadvertently switch to the other in mid-sentence. It has nothing to do with knowledge of grammar or proper style, it's just a brain fart.

[gwnn]

And which one would you rather have: a president who over-corrects or a president who has brain farts? :)

 

disclaimer: I am not paid by GOP or the DP, not a US citizen, not well informed, not well meaning, just a troll from across the pond.

[kenberg]

And which one would you rather have: a president who over-corrects or a president who has brain farts? :)

 

 

 

Yes, finally we get to the choice we must make this November! Right now I am leaning toward the brain fart guy.

[luke warm]

Yes, finally we get to the choice we must make this November! Right now I am leaning toward the brain fart guy.

well at least the brain fart guy seems to be getting a few thousand fewer assassination threats (of which the secret service is "aware")