| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » bad English
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Victor Lee |
 Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hi all,
I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the paragraph
under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
"I really fail to see the point. Are the examples of 'phoque English' you
post really so egregious? One meets with solecistic usage of English, from
native and non-native speakers alike, at every turn. Were we all to post the
examples of poor English we came across, as you seem to be so fond of doing,
this newsgroup would be so overwhelmed by them that there would be room for
little else."
I think it is very bad English, so I want to ameliorate it. Can anyone help
me?
E.g., "fail" should be followed by a noun, like "fail an exam", so "fail the
point"? Should the third sentence be "One meeting with solecistic usage...?"
And "solecistic" is not a word. I can't find it in my dictionary. Also the
last sentence is completely incomprehensible to me. Shouldn't it be "We were
all..."? And "them that would be room for little else" is not a good
relative clause at all, which should be "they that would be room", right?
(What does "for little else" mean?)
Someone who writes so bad English that cannot be understood should not
correct other people's English, I think.
Victor |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Christopher Johnson |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 12:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Victor Lee wrote:
Quote: Hi all,
I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the paragraph
under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
"I really fail to see the point. Are the examples of 'phoque English' you
post really so egregious? One meets with solecistic usage of English, from
native and non-native speakers alike, at every turn. Were we all to post the
examples of poor English we came across, as you seem to be so fond of doing,
this newsgroup would be so overwhelmed by them that there would be room for
little else."
I think it is very bad English, so I want to ameliorate it. Can anyone help
me?
E.g., "fail" should be followed by a noun, like "fail an exam", so "fail the
point"? Should the third sentence be "One meeting with solecistic usage...?"
And "solecistic" is not a word. I can't find it in my dictionary. Also the
last sentence is completely incomprehensible to me. Shouldn't it be "We were
all..."? And "them that would be room for little else" is not a good
relative clause at all, which should be "they that would be room", right?
(What does "for little else" mean?)
Someone who writes so bad English that cannot be understood should not
correct other people's English, I think.
All of your suggested 'improvements' are incorrect, Victor.
--
Christopher
(Change 3032 to 3232 to reply by private e-mail) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Martin Ambuhl |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Victor Lee wrote:
Quote: Hi all,
I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the paragraph
under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
"I really fail to see the point. Are the examples of 'phoque English' you
post really so egregious? One meets with solecistic usage of English, from
native and non-native speakers alike, at every turn. Were we all to post the
examples of poor English we came across, as you seem to be so fond of doing,
this newsgroup would be so overwhelmed by them that there would be room for
little else."
I think it is very bad English, so I want to ameliorate it. Can anyone help
me?
E.g., "fail" should be followed by a noun, like "fail an exam", so "fail the
point"?
That is simply absurd. "Fail to <infinitive>" is perfectly normal English,
and has been common since the 14th century. Perhaps you have some language
other than English in mind. Since the entry for "fail" takes up four full
columns in OED1, I will not post the gamut of examples from it. But we
have, for example,
Hall (1548) "Kyng James would make no aunswere..knowing that his power now
fayled..to performe the request demanded."
Quote: Should the third sentence be "One meeting with solecistic usage...?"
And "solecistic" is not a word. I can't find it in my dictionary.
Buy a better dictionary. The OED1 definition (omitting the pronunciation,
etymology, and six quotations) is
/adj./ also soloecistic(k)
Of the nature of or involving solecism:
(a) In speech or diction.
(b) In thought or conduct.
The much smaller SOED5 has simply "/adjective/ of the nature of or
involving solecism." The word, dating from the early 19th century, has
been with us for 2 centuries. Once again, you may be thinking of some
language other than English, because you are completely wrong with regard
to English.
By the way, "solecistical" is also a word.
Quote: Also the
last sentence is completely incomprehensible to me. Shouldn't it be "We were
all..."? And "them that would be room for little else" is not a good
relative clause at all, which should be "they that would be room", right?
(What does "for little else" mean?)
"Them" is the object of "by", and the sentence is perfectly understandable
by anyone knowing how to read English. Are you serious or just a troll?
Quote: Someone who writes so bad English that cannot be understood should not
correct other people's English, I think.
Someone who posts such obvious bullshit as yours has no business correcting
anyone's English.
--
Martin Ambuhl |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Harlan Messinger |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Victor Lee" <viclee24@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: Hi all,
I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the paragraph
under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
"I really fail to see the point. Are the examples of 'phoque English' you
post really so egregious? One meets with solecistic usage of English, from
native and non-native speakers alike, at every turn. Were we all to post the
examples of poor English we came across, as you seem to be so fond of doing,
this newsgroup would be so overwhelmed by them that there would be room for
little else."
I think it is very bad English, so I want to ameliorate it. Can anyone help
me?
E.g., "fail" should be followed by a noun, like "fail an exam", so "fail the
point"?
Following "fail" with an infinitive is entirely correct.
Quote: Should the third sentence be "One meeting with solecistic usage...?"
And "solecistic" is not a word. I can't find it in my dictionary.
"It is not in my dictionary, therefore it is not a word" is an invalid
deduction. It is a word, and Merriam-Webster on-line carries it as a
derived form of "solecism".
Quote: Also the
last sentence is completely incomprehensible to me. Shouldn't it be "We were
all..."?
It's fine. It's not the same as "We were all". It could have been
written "If we were all".
Quote: And "them that would be room for little else" is not a good
relative clause at all,
It's not *a* relative clause at all. Here are simpler sentences that
illustrate this use "so" with "that":
He ate so much that his stomach hurt.
(His stomach hurt because he ate so much.)
This phone is so small that it can fit in my shirt pocket.
(This phone can fit in my shirt pocket because it is so small.)
Quote: which should be "they that would be room", right?
(What does "for little else" mean?)
Someone who writes so bad English that cannot be understood should not
correct other people's English, I think.
Someone who is largely unfamiliar with proper English usage should not
correct other people's English!
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Commander Venus+ |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Victor Lee" <viclee24@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bufp3e$mdn$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...
Quote: Hi all,
I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the paragraph
under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
If this post isn't a joke, than I'm a struggling actor.
--
Commander Venus+
"Let's dance." (circa 2003)
commandervenus@rogers.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ron Hardin |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Victor Lee wrote:
You have failed to master the subjunctive. The subjunctive is used for indignation
and hauteur (``Be that as it may,'' ``Far be it from me''), moral posturing
(``Would God I were,'' ``If there be justice'') and sparring for time when caught
with another woman (``What if she were?'').
``Were we all'' is posturative.
--
Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dylan Sung |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Victor Lee" <viclee24@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bufp3e$mdn$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...
Quote: Hi all,
I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the paragraph
under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
Actually, Sebastian Hew writes very good English.
Dyl. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Skræðer |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Victor Lee" <viclee24@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bufp3e$mdn$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...
Quote:
Someone who writes so bad English that cannot be understood should
not
correct other people's English, I think.
This part says it all really.
--
Skræðer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Gary Vellenzer |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <0asm00haa8ag8m1ni9ufvmvrepdm19pbfe@4ax.com>,
hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
Quote: "Victor Lee" <viclee24@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the paragraph
under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
"I really fail to see the point. Are the examples of 'phoque English' you
post really so egregious? One meets with solecistic usage of English, from
native and non-native speakers alike, at every turn. Were we all to post the
examples of poor English we came across, as you seem to be so fond of doing,
this newsgroup would be so overwhelmed by them that there would be room for
little else."
I think it is very bad English, so I want to ameliorate it. Can anyone help
me?
E.g., "fail" should be followed by a noun, like "fail an exam", so "fail the
point"?
Following "fail" with an infinitive is entirely correct.
Should the third sentence be "One meeting with solecistic usage...?"
And "solecistic" is not a word. I can't find it in my dictionary.
"It is not in my dictionary, therefore it is not a word" is an invalid
deduction. It is a word, and Merriam-Webster on-line carries it as a
derived form of "solecism".
Also the
last sentence is completely incomprehensible to me. Shouldn't it be "We were
all..."?
It's fine. It's not the same as "We were all". It could have been
written "If we were all".
And "them that would be room for little else" is not a good
relative clause at all,
It's not *a* relative clause at all. Here are simpler sentences that
illustrate this use "so" with "that":
He ate so much that his stomach hurt.
(His stomach hurt because he ate so much.)
This phone is so small that it can fit in my shirt pocket.
(This phone can fit in my shirt pocket because it is so small.)
which should be "they that would be room", right?
(What does "for little else" mean?)
Someone who writes so bad English that cannot be understood should not
correct other people's English, I think.
Someone who is largely unfamiliar with proper English usage should not
correct other people's English!
It's worth pointing out that most of the usages that tripped up the OP
are slightly literary and wouldn't be used in newspaper English or
technical writing.
Gary |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter T. Daniels |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Martin Ambuhl wrote:
Quote: By the way, "solecistical" is also a word.
Now that's just plain silly. Did some poetaster need an extra syllable?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ron Hardin |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Quote:
Martin Ambuhl wrote:
By the way, "solecistical" is also a word.
Now that's just plain silly. Did some poetaster need an extra syllable?
That's nonsensic.
--
Ron Hardin
rhhardin@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Raymond S. Wise |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 3:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:400BDDD8.6E54@worldnet.att.net...
Quote: Martin Ambuhl wrote:
By the way, "solecistical" is also a word.
Now that's just plain silly. Did some poetaster need an extra syllable?
Well, the cites given in the following dictionary entries indicate that it's
been used by at least _two_ prose writers:
From The Century Dictionary at
www.century-dictionary.com
[quote]
solecistical [...], _a._ [<_solecistic_ +
_-al._] Same as _solecistic._
The use of these combinations, with respect to the pro-
nouns, is almost always _solecistical._
_Tyrwhitt,_ Gloss. to Chaucer, under _self._
[end quote]
From the 1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary at
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=solecistical
[quote]
Sol`e*cis"tic*al (?), a. Pertaining to, or involving, a solecism; incorrect.
He thought it made the language _solecistical_ and absurd." _Blackwall._
[end quote]
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tom Breton |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Victor Lee" <viclee24@yahoo.com> writes:
Quote: Hi all,
I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the paragraph
under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
"I really fail to see the point. Are the examples of 'phoque English' you
post really so egregious? One meets with solecistic usage of English, from
native and non-native speakers alike, at every turn. Were we all to post the
examples of poor English we came across, as you seem to be so fond of doing,
this newsgroup would be so overwhelmed by them that there would be room for
little else."
I think it is very bad English, so I want to ameliorate it. Can anyone help
me?
Is this a joke? Like "I'm going to do the opposite of what he says
while pretending not to understand"?
Quote: E.g., "fail" should be followed by a noun, like "fail an exam", so "fail the
point"? Should the third sentence be "One meeting with solecistic usage...?"
And "solecistic" is not a word. I can't find it in my dictionary. Also the
last sentence is completely incomprehensible to me. Shouldn't it be "We were
all..."? And "them that would be room for little else" is not a good
relative clause at all, which should be "they that would be room", right?
(What does "for little else" mean?)
No, no, no, no, no, and "for few things other than that".
Quote:
Someone who writes so bad English that cannot be understood should not
correct other people's English, I think.
Ah. It *is* a satire. Very subtle!
--
Tom Breton, calm-eyed visionary |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Harlan Messinger |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Gary Vellenzer <nycram@seznam.cz> wrote:
Quote: In article <0asm00haa8ag8m1ni9ufvmvrepdm19pbfe@4ax.com>,
hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net says...
"Victor Lee" <viclee24@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm quite good at English, but I cannot understand at all the paragraph
under from a post by Sebastian Hew.
"I really fail to see the point. Are the examples of 'phoque English' you
post really so egregious? One meets with solecistic usage of English, from
native and non-native speakers alike, at every turn. Were we all to post the
examples of poor English we came across, as you seem to be so fond of doing,
this newsgroup would be so overwhelmed by them that there would be room for
little else."
I think it is very bad English, so I want to ameliorate it. Can anyone help
me?
E.g., "fail" should be followed by a noun, like "fail an exam", so "fail the
point"?
Following "fail" with an infinitive is entirely correct.
Should the third sentence be "One meeting with solecistic usage...?"
And "solecistic" is not a word. I can't find it in my dictionary.
"It is not in my dictionary, therefore it is not a word" is an invalid
deduction. It is a word, and Merriam-Webster on-line carries it as a
derived form of "solecism".
Also the
last sentence is completely incomprehensible to me. Shouldn't it be "We were
all..."?
It's fine. It's not the same as "We were all". It could have been
written "If we were all".
And "them that would be room for little else" is not a good
relative clause at all,
It's not *a* relative clause at all. Here are simpler sentences that
illustrate this use "so" with "that":
He ate so much that his stomach hurt.
(His stomach hurt because he ate so much.)
This phone is so small that it can fit in my shirt pocket.
(This phone can fit in my shirt pocket because it is so small.)
which should be "they that would be room", right?
(What does "for little else" mean?)
Someone who writes so bad English that cannot be understood should not
correct other people's English, I think.
Someone who is largely unfamiliar with proper English usage should not
correct other people's English!
It's worth pointing out that most of the usages that tripped up the OP
are slightly literary and wouldn't be used in newspaper English or
technical writing.
"Fail" + infinitive is literary? "This newsgroup would be so
overwhelmed by them that ..." wouldn't be used in newspaper English?
And even if "solecistic" isn't heard much at the corner pub, the OP
had no basis for declaring it a non-word. He was simply wrong on all
counts. Reasonable as it might be for him to be simply wrong, it's not
reasonable for him to assert his own misconceptions as "corrections".
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Harlan Messinger |
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Victor Lee" <viclee24@yahoo.com> wrote:
Oh, and by the way:
Quote: I'm quite good at English,
[snip]
Quote: Someone who writes so bad English that cannot be understood should not
correct other people's English, I think.
As long as you think people's English ought to be corrected, your
sentence above is poorly written. You should be using the same
construction that I explained to you, using "so" and "that":
"Someone who writes English so badly that it cannot be understood
should not correct other people's English."
A variation:
"Someone who writes such bad English that it cannot be understood
....."
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:05 pm
|
|