Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Antonio Marques Newsgroups: sci.lang,alt.usage.english Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:=20To=20waffle,=20=E2=80=98to=20waver,?= =?UTF-8?Q?=20to=20vacillate,=20to=20equivocate,=20to=20dither=E2=80=99?= Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 18:51:46 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 107 Message-ID: References: <874jbqlz6d.fsf@parhasard.net> <889c5dbf100f389994b0045c982b3eb2@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 01 May 2024 20:51:46 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f6a1440e42100ab6b7aa2768d7d01e5b"; logging-data="3500582"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18G+s/+3GXqMpN3r/2V/supC6zgdLOvPyvVNh+nAdxT3Q==" User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch) Cancel-Lock: sha1:sAiZQNSaQDsesHSDs/4h0vSZMrk= sha1:lLXMKvgpWtHrT7vrpb3qYfHVEJI= Bytes: 5224 jerryfriedman wrote: > Antonio Marques wrote: > >> jerryfriedman wrote: >>> Antonio Marques wrote: >>> >>>> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote: >>>>> jerryfriedman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't >>>>>> notice Subject lines. >>>>> >>>>> Certainly not. >>>>> >>>>>> I don't know how that happens, >>>>> >>>>> Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something that >>>>> appears only in the subject line. >>>>> >>> >>>> Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what >>>> 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'. >>> >>> The "it" there isn't idiomatic > >> The sentence sounded wrong to me, but even now I'm not sure why. >> As to 'it', maybe it's not idiomatic, but is it ungrammatical? I don't >> quite see it. > > "It" refers to "dither", No, it's an impersonal passive, and I've just found out that for the last 30/40 years I may have been using a construct that english doesn't have. It's probably late to erase it from my grammar, never mind that I like it. Oh, well. > so they're competing to be the subject of the > clause. If the sentence is an example of what I believe you linguists (That's not me.) > call "right dislocation", you'd want a comma before "dither", and this > would be a very strange spot for the construction, for reasons I can't > define except that it's typically colloquial. I won't say I've never used that one, but I agree it's much too marked. > Otherwise, we've got "pseudocleft sentences" such as "It doesn't matter > where it happened" (compare "Where it happened doesn't matter"), but > the noun phrase corresponding to the initial "It" has to be a clause > or a to+infinite phrase/clause. > > (All subject to correction, notably of terminology.) > >>> (though English has similar constructions that >>> do have an "it"). You could write "'dither' was quite explicitly said." >>> I might write something like "the meaning was explicitly 'dither'." > >> I could, but that would move the topic from the intended position. I can't >> think of a suitable alternative. > > There's "In the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire what 'that' > meant, it quite explicitly said 'dither'." That's somewhat informal, I'd > say. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that construction where I expected 'mine'. > What's the antecedent of "it"? More formally, you could write > "the text said" or "Aidan said". > > If the subject were shorter, you could write "The bit that Steve quoted > explicitly said 'dither'." Or maybe you'd want something instead of > "said", such as "included the word". But what you actually wrote was > too long for that to be comfortable. Which brings us to there being no proper alternative, which is odd but doesn't look likely to interfere with my sleep. >>> Also, "on" would be better as "about", or better still deleted, in my >>> opinion. > >> That's another interesting thing. You're right that it sounds better >> without a preposition. But... where did I acquire inquire on from? >> The best I could come up with in a lazy search was that it exists but >> doesn't seem appear in reputable sources. One page suggests inquire should >> take the same or no prepositions as ask, which sounds neat but may be >> wrong. Ask on doesn't certainly seem possible, unless in the unrelated keep >> asking meaning. > >> This should provide some more material for comment. > .. > > In a minute of thought, I can't think of a situation where you could > replace "ask" with "inquire" but would change the preposition. > > (I might have time later to return to the topic of contempt by default.) >