Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Hopefully, someone can settle this family argument!

Peter T. Daniels · Guest

On Jul 24, 1:50 am, angelgloww20...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]Nathan Sanders wrote:
In article <LvThk.7220$vn7....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com>,
"Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Nathan Sanders wrote:
analyst41 wrote:

Maybe this explains why the language is still resisting "hopefully".

The language isn>t resisting. Some people are intentionally trying to
hold it back, but the language itself long ago evolved to have
sentential "hopefully".

It>s just like split infinitives, preposition stranding, or any other
prescriptive rule that gets broken constantly in ordinary speech. The
fact that grammar mavens aren>t being listened to is proof that the
language itself is in favor of breaking the rule.

How does the language itself do this?

For the sake of discursive continuity, allow me the minimal artistic
leeway necessary to preserve analyst>s initial anthropomorphization of
language.

(I>d like to see angelgloww try to reword *that* using only Germanic
roots!)

Nathan

"To keep to the topic, I remind you language is man-made."
[I purposely left off the relative pronoun on my principle of parsimony.]
[/quote]
What relative pronoun? This pose of yours as an English teacher has
just been a pose all this time?

(And what do you propose that as a paraphrase of? It certainly isn>t
of Nathan>s statement just above.)

[quote]Do I hear cries of sexism out in AUE Land? Then I>ll reword it:

"To keep to the topic, I remind you that language is a social tool."[/quote]

Peter T. Daniels · Guest

On Jul 24, 4:02 am, angelgloww20...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]Nathan Sanders wrote:
In article <g6953n$84...@ccnews.ncku.edu.tw>,
angelgloww20...@yahoo.com wrote:
For the sake of sticking to the path already laid out in this
give-and-take, bestow on me the freedom needed to follow analyst>s
idle whim that speech is a living (man-like) thing.

That>s not Germanic; that>s Babel Fish.
[/quote]
So Late 20th Century Literature is another topic outside the pretended
English teacher "angelgloww20..."'s purview.

Nathan Sanders · Guest

In article <g6953n$84n$1@ccnews.ncku.edu.tw>,
angelgloww2000*@yahoo.com wrote:

[quote]Nathan Sanders wrote:

For the sake of discursive continuity, allow me the minimal artistic
leeway necessary to preserve analyst>s initial anthropomorphization of
language.

(I>d like to see angelgloww try to reword *that* using only Germanic
roots!)

"To keep to the topic,
[/quote]
BZZT!

Furthermore, "topic" isn>t quite right. Something along the lines of
"motif", "theme", "conceit", or "metaphor" would be more
appropriate... but none of those are Germanic!

[quote]I remind you language
[/quote]
BZZT!

[quote]is man-made."
[/quote]
Your paraphrase completely misses the whole reason for my statement:
addressing why I was treating language as a sentient entity capable of
resisting change, with the reason being that analyst had already done
so, establishing a motif that I felt compelled to adhere to.

(I was forced to extend the motif by making it specifically
anthropomorphic rather than more general, because I don>t know of a
good recognizable word for metaphorically describing something as
alive/aware while not specifying it as specifically human-like.
"Animization" doesn>t seem to have widespread currency.)

Here>s my attempt at a purely Germanic paraphrase:

For the sake of sticking to the path already laid out in this
give-and-take, bestow on me the freedom needed to follow analyst>s
idle whim that speech is a living (man-like) thing.

(I might be cheating with "whim"--- I>m not certain of it>s etymology.)

My Germanic paraphrase preserves the basic meaning of the original,
but some of the nuances and imagery are lost. I think it>s also a bit
harder to parse than the original.

So, I think I>ll stick to my writing style. I always did prefer
Faulkner to Hemingway anyway:

"He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the
dictionary." --William Faulkner (about Ernest Hemingway)

"Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big
words?" --Ernest Hemingway (about William Faulkner)

Nathan

--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/

Nathan Sanders · Guest

In article <K9Vhk.22076$IK1.10377@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"John Atkinson" <johnacko@bigpond.com> wrote:

[quote]"Maria C." <noname@sbcglobal.net> wrote...
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Nathan Sanders wrote:

I>m beginning to suspect you>re just pulling my chain now. Given
you already claimed not to have serious discussions, this seems
like the safest explanation.

Yanking my chain, surely? as opposed to pulling my leg?

What>s mildly interesting is that while 'pulling my chain'
will probably be interpreted correctly as 'yanking my
chain', 'yanking my leg' is just puzzling.

"Pulling my chain" is the phrase I use (though seldom). I>ve heard
"yanking my chain" on occasion, but I think it>s not the "original."
Isn>t "yanking" (in this phrase) simply an exaggeration of "pulling"?
Or seen to be a more emphatic version?

Note: Without looking it up, I>d say that "pulling my chain" could be
related somehow to toilets which have chains to pull for flushing.

It could indeed. Sneaking up on someone and pulling their chain while
they>re sitting there contemplating a serious if not quite
world-shattering matter -- so they get a cold wet bum -- is an
excellent, if rather schoolboyish, way of achieving what Nathan>s been
experiencing.
[/quote]
....

Nathan

--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/

Guest

Nathan Sanders wrote:
[quote]In article <g6953n$84n$1@ccnews.ncku.edu.tw>,
angelgloww2000*@yahoo.com wrote:

For the sake of sticking to the path already laid out in this
give-and-take, bestow on me the freedom needed to follow analyst>s
idle whim that speech is a living (man-like) thing.
[/quote]
That>s not Germanic; that>s Babel Fish.

Peter T. Daniels · Guest

On Jul 24, 9:40 am, Fred Springer <fred.sprin...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
[quote]Mike Page wrote:
K. Edgcombe wrote:
In article
b32ffab9-4821-47bb-bfae-13bee85d3...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:43 pm, "Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Note: Without looking it up, I>d say that "pulling my chain" could be
related somehow to toilets which have chains to pull for flushing.
(I>ve
only heard about those toilets; ignore this if what I>ve heard is
just a
myth.)
How deprived that you never saw a 19th-century tenement toilet! The
tank was mounted near the ceiling, the chain opened the valve, and the
water flushed the bowl. It made efficient use of gravity.

You don>t have to go to a 19th century tenement, unless a Cambridge
College
can rightly be so described. In between reading this thread and
replying to
it, I have made use of just such a device, down the corridor from my
office.

(and when I was growing up in London they were absolutely standard in
my home
and those of my friends).

Much to be said for them, since the high level flush scours the bowl
very effectively. They do seem to get cantankerous with age - one may
need to 'surprise' a worn one. Or pull the chain repeatedly, thus
announcing noisily to all and sundry what one is about. The mechanism
doesn>t include a valve (except on the ballcock); a bell shaped device
is lifted, when one pulls the chain, creating a syphon so that water
pours down the pipe. This simplicity generally ensures a long, service
free, life.

In Germany, loos are generally flushed directly from the pipe, with no
intermediate storage cistern -- rather like the arrangement aboard ship,
but using fresh water. This requires of course a higher water pressure
than is found in the normal domestic water pipe in the UK. The lavatory
bowl itself also often differs from the usual British pattern, with a
wide expanse of porcelain a few inches below the rim,
[/quote]
That sounds like the American model. Apartment houses these days
usually have "flushometers," a device for building up pressure
directly from the water supply, so there is no delay between flushes
while a tank fills up.

[quote]on which one may
examine the outcome of one>s efforts before consigning it (them?) to the
municipal sewers. Many Germans of my acquaintance do seem rather
obsessive about their bowel movements.

If there>s a plumber reading this I>d be interested to know why British
domestic plumbing normally relies on a storage tank in the loft rather
than the simpler system found in Germany. Mind you, if there is a
plumber reading this I>d also like to know why she has so much time to
waste when all her customers are clamouring for her services.
[/quote]
Sounds like the Brits don>t modernize their plumbing when improvements
come along.

Guest

On Jul 24, 3:33 am, Nathan Sanders <nsand...@williams.edu> wrote:
[quote]In article <g6953n$84...@ccnews.ncku.edu.tw>,

angelgloww20...@yahoo.com wrote:
Nathan Sanders wrote:

For the sake of discursive continuity, allow me the minimal artistic
leeway necessary to preserve analyst>s initial anthropomorphization of
language.

(I>d like to see angelgloww try to reword *that* using only Germanic
roots!)

"To keep to the topic,

BZZT!

Furthermore, "topic" isn>t quite right. Something along the lines of
"motif", "theme", "conceit", or "metaphor" would be more
appropriate... but none of those are Germanic!

I remind you language

BZZT!

is man-made."

Your paraphrase completely misses the whole reason for my statement:
addressing why I was treating language as a sentient entity capable of
resisting change, with the reason being that analyst had already done
so, establishing a motif that I felt compelled to adhere to.

(I was forced to extend the motif by making it specifically
anthropomorphic rather than more general, because I don>t know of a
good recognizable word for metaphorically describing something as
alive/aware while not specifying it as specifically human-like.
"Animization" doesn>t seem to have widespread currency.)
[/quote]

You are a making too much of a usage thats pretty common in hist/comp
ling:

examples (search results):

start quote

Handbücher zur sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft: Ein ... -
Google Books Resultby G. E. Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan -
2000 - Language Arts & Disciplines - 1000 pages
Since they occur in contrasting surroundings, they testify to two
separate cases, their distinctness preserved in Latin whereas Greek
has merged it. ...

end quote

start quote

JSTOR: Les mots a redoublement en latinA. points out that Latin has
retained both forms of the pair amma/mamma, even if the first is
confirmed only by a proper name like Aurelia Amma and by its ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X(198104)76%3A2%3C162%3ALMAREL
%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

end quote

start quote

BOPPof one original tongue, which, however, the Sanskrit has preserved
more perfect ... to say, whilst the Sanskrit has preserved many
grammatical forms, ...
www.geocities.com/cabvoltaire.geo/BOPP.html

end quote

K. Edgcombe · Guest

In article <b32ffab9-4821-47bb-bfae-13bee85d32b8@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote]On Jul 23, 2:43 pm, "Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Note: Without looking it up, I>d say that "pulling my chain" could be
related somehow to toilets which have chains to pull for flushing. (I>ve
only heard about those toilets; ignore this if what I>ve heard is just a
myth.)

How deprived that you never saw a 19th-century tenement toilet! The
tank was mounted near the ceiling, the chain opened the valve, and the
water flushed the bowl. It made efficient use of gravity.
[/quote]
You don>t have to go to a 19th century tenement, unless a Cambridge College
can rightly be so described. In between reading this thread and replying to
it, I have made use of just such a device, down the corridor from my office.

(and when I was growing up in London they were absolutely standard in my home
and those of my friends).

Katy

Mike Page · Guest

K. Edgcombe wrote:
[quote]In article <b32ffab9-4821-47bb-bfae-13bee85d32b8@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:43 pm, "Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Note: Without looking it up, I>d say that "pulling my chain" could be
related somehow to toilets which have chains to pull for flushing. (I>ve
only heard about those toilets; ignore this if what I>ve heard is just a
myth.)
How deprived that you never saw a 19th-century tenement toilet! The
tank was mounted near the ceiling, the chain opened the valve, and the
water flushed the bowl. It made efficient use of gravity.

You don>t have to go to a 19th century tenement, unless a Cambridge College
can rightly be so described. In between reading this thread and replying to
it, I have made use of just such a device, down the corridor from my office.

(and when I was growing up in London they were absolutely standard in my home
and those of my friends).
[/quote]
Much to be said for them, since the high level flush scours the bowl
very effectively. They do seem to get cantankerous with age - one may
need to 'surprise' a worn one. Or pull the chain repeatedly, thus
announcing noisily to all and sundry what one is about. The mechanism
doesn>t include a valve (except on the ballcock); a bell shaped device
is lifted, when one pulls the chain, creating a syphon so that water
pours down the pipe. This simplicity generally ensures a long, service
free, life.

--
Mike Page
Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email.

Adam Funk · Guest

On 2008-07-23, Maria C. wrote:

[quote]"Pulling my chain" is the phrase I use (though seldom). I>ve heard
"yanking my chain" on occasion, but I think it>s not the "original."
Isn>t "yanking" (in this phrase) simply an exaggeration of "pulling"? Or
seen to be a more emphatic version?

Note: Without looking it up, I>d say that "pulling my chain" could be
related somehow to toilets which have chains to pull for flushing. (I>ve
only heard about those toilets; ignore this if what I>ve heard is just a
myth.)
[/quote]
I>m not sure if you can still buy new high-flushing toilets, but I
have seen them in good working order in respectable places indoors in
the UK.

I think they are more efficient since the water pressure coming into
the pan is greater for a given height of water in the cistern (since
the pressure is proportial to the head of water, including the height
of the connecting pipe), so you should be able to get an effective
flush with considerably less water.

--
Any employee here on the hill would run at high speed: 9600 or 19200
baud. Only someone calling through a modem would let their data
dribble out of a 1200-baud soda straw. (Stoll 1989)

Fred Springer · Guest

Mike Page wrote:
[quote]K. Edgcombe wrote:
In article
b32ffab9-4821-47bb-bfae-13bee85d32b8@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 23, 2:43 pm, "Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Note: Without looking it up, I>d say that "pulling my chain" could be
related somehow to toilets which have chains to pull for flushing.
(I>ve
only heard about those toilets; ignore this if what I>ve heard is
just a
myth.)
How deprived that you never saw a 19th-century tenement toilet! The
tank was mounted near the ceiling, the chain opened the valve, and the
water flushed the bowl. It made efficient use of gravity.

You don>t have to go to a 19th century tenement, unless a Cambridge
College
can rightly be so described. In between reading this thread and
replying to
it, I have made use of just such a device, down the corridor from my
office.

(and when I was growing up in London they were absolutely standard in
my home
and those of my friends).

Much to be said for them, since the high level flush scours the bowl
very effectively. They do seem to get cantankerous with age - one may
need to 'surprise' a worn one. Or pull the chain repeatedly, thus
announcing noisily to all and sundry what one is about. The mechanism
doesn>t include a valve (except on the ballcock); a bell shaped device
is lifted, when one pulls the chain, creating a syphon so that water
pours down the pipe. This simplicity generally ensures a long, service
free, life.

In Germany, loos are generally flushed directly from the pipe, with no[/quote]
intermediate storage cistern -- rather like the arrangement aboard ship,
but using fresh water. This requires of course a higher water pressure
than is found in the normal domestic water pipe in the UK. The lavatory
bowl itself also often differs from the usual British pattern, with a
wide expanse of porcelain a few inches below the rim, on which one may
examine the outcome of one>s efforts before consigning it (them?) to the
municipal sewers. Many Germans of my acquaintance do seem rather
obsessive about their bowel movements.

If there>s a plumber reading this I>d be interested to know why British
domestic plumbing normally relies on a storage tank in the loft rather
than the simpler system found in Germany. Mind you, if there is a
plumber reading this I>d also like to know why she has so much time to
waste when all her customers are clamouring for her services.

James Silverton · Guest

Fred wrote on Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:40:10 +0100:

[quote]
In Germany, loos are generally flushed directly from the pipe,
with no intermediate storage cistern -- rather like the
arrangement aboard ship, but using fresh water. This requires of
course a higher water pressure than is found in the normal domestic
water pipe in the UK. The lavatory bowl itself also often differs
from the usual British pattern, with a wide
expanse of porcelain a few inches below the rim, on which one may
examine the outcome of one>s efforts before consigning it (them?) to
the municipal sewers. Many Germans of my
acquaintance do seem rather obsessive about their bowel
movements.
[/quote]
Judging by apartments that I have rented in Germany, Switzerland and
France, tanks are still very common. The flush handle differs from US
and British practice in that it is often just a pull knob on top of the
tank. French plumbing still seems to suffer from inadequate gas seals
such that sewer odors are often noticeable.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Chuck Riggs · Guest

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:48:31 -0700, "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net>
wrote:

[quote]Maria C. wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Nathan Sanders wrote:

I>m beginning to suspect you>re just pulling my chain now. Given
you already claimed not to have serious discussions, this seems
like the safest explanation.

Yanking my chain, surely? as opposed to pulling my leg?

What>s mildly interesting is that while 'pulling my chain'
will probably be interpreted correctly as 'yanking my
chain', 'yanking my leg' is just puzzling.

"Pulling my chain" is the phrase I use (though seldom). I>ve heard
"yanking my chain" on occasion, but I think it>s not the "original."
Isn>t "yanking" (in this phrase) simply an exaggeration of "pulling"?
Or seen to be a more emphatic version?

Note: Without looking it up, I>d say that "pulling my chain" could be
related somehow to toilets which have chains to pull for flushing.
(I>ve only heard about those toilets; ignore this if what I>ve heard
is just a myth.)

We had one of those back in the 'thirties in Riga.
[/quote]
We still have one in Ballybrack. The house, and the toilet, probably
dates back to the early twenties.
--

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Chuck Riggs · Guest

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:07:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 23, 2:43 pm, "Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Nathan Sanders wrote:

I>m beginning to suspect you>re just pulling my chain now. Given
you already claimed not to have serious discussions, this seems
like the safest explanation.

Yanking my chain, surely? as opposed to pulling my leg?

What>s mildly interesting is that while 'pulling my chain'
will probably be interpreted correctly as 'yanking my
chain', 'yanking my leg' is just puzzling.

"Pulling my chain" is the phrase I use (though seldom). I>ve heard
"yanking my chain" on occasion, but I think it>s not the "original."
Isn>t "yanking" (in this phrase) simply an exaggeration of "pulling"? Or
seen to be a more emphatic version?

Note: Without looking it up, I>d say that "pulling my chain" could be
related somehow to toilets which have chains to pull for flushing. (I>ve
only heard about those toilets; ignore this if what I>ve heard is just a
myth.)

How deprived that you never saw a 19th-century tenement toilet! The
tank was mounted near the ceiling, the chain opened the valve, and the
water flushed the bowl. It made efficient use of gravity.
[/quote]
Perhaps ours is older than I thought, for that fairly well describes
it. It is not in a tenement house, however, but was originally in an
estate house, from my father>s guess.
--

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland

Chuck Riggs · Guest

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:59:19 -0400, "Maria C." <noname@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

[quote]Peter T. Daniels wrote:

How deprived that you never saw a 19th-century tenement toilet!...

Deprived? Maybe not. I recall having to use the ever-popular "outhouse"
on occasion. Now there>s a rich experience. Surely the sight of tenement
toilets can>t compare.

....The
tank was mounted near the ceiling, the chain opened the valve, and the
water flushed the bowl. It made efficient use of gravity.

Actually, I>ve seen pictures, and I>ve wondered if the tanks ever fall
on someone.
[/quote]
The things women worry about...
--

Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Languages Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15 Next
Page 13 of 15