Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Antonio Marques <no_email@invalid.invalid>
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: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 13:33:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <v0qruj$2fvnq$1@dont-email.me>
References: <874jbqlz6d.fsf@parhasard.net>
 <889c5dbf100f389994b0045c982b3eb2@www.novabbs.com>
 <v0dtql$32vn5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v0me1o$18rb8$1@dont-email.me>
 <dde345b58f5759830f2537ea1bd61367@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:33:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2d44664497a20ac3509ed21fbb899945";
	logging-data="2621178"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qig11dc3BPFXeIehDoWhbF6y3O3K9fuKH0/FiZ+t/Ug=="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3ZvGUDgNyqjJZXqov5YS8pOBje8=
	sha1:tgM0gMkW+dXTic8joI4tTMTA7EU=
Bytes: 3698

jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
> Antonio Marques wrote:
> 
>> Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> 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.


> (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.


> 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.

>> Of course, that type of incivility is part of the reason why historically
>> (a number of) sci.langers hold aueers (by default) in some measure of
>> contempt.
> 
> I have my prejudices, but holding the posters in a newsgroup in any
> measure of contempt by default hasn't occurred to me.

Sometimes you get it from the group's own name, such as a lot in the alt.*
hierarchy (not this one, obviously, although in early days it had its
alt.quality.english vibes), sometimes from an attitude displayed all too
often, but the provisos are there, it's only a number of and only by
default and only in some measure. I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual,
albeit for different reasons.