| Author |
Message |
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
On 20 Nov 2004 06:18:00 -0800, jay.rayner@observer.co.uk (Jay Rayner)
wrote:
| Quote: | And of course I was posting as a means to promote my book; my whole
life is devoted to nothing else.
|
Our lives are not. I suggest you troll in some other group; your
motives were all too obvious to ours.
--
Charles Riggs
They are no accented letters in my email address
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:20:52 +0100, trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:
I haven't seen any such broad sweeping asertions, and this is the first time
I've seen your book mentioned here.
I looked in the archives. It starts here:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=cet5gh$k8h$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk
John Dean raised a question based on the guy's website, there were about
six comments (including, I must add, one from your good self), and then
the discussion moved on to whether CyberCypher had meant to be funny
when he said something or other.
|
That's okay: Franke is often misinterpreted, he tells us, so he must
be used to it by now.
--
Charles Riggs
They are no accented letters in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:00 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:49:29 -0500, Jim Ward
<tomcatpolka@NyOaShPoAoM.com> wrote:
Wrong kind of aunt. The "agony aunt" is a newspaper columnist that
answers letters from readers like: "My husband clips his toenails in
bed. Should I leave him? P.S.: It's his secretary's bed."
About that "dell" thing, it refers you to the "Dictionary of the
Vulgar Tongue". This is Rey Aman's niche. It would be folly for
anyone else to address the question.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:00 am
Post subject: "about whom I was": Boo! [was: Re: The Apologist] |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:19:19 -0500, Ben Zimmer
<bgzimmer@midway.uchicago.edu> said:
[...]
| Quote: | " [...] not having had the courage to be open about
whom I was."
|
[...]
| Quote: | As Liberman puts it, the overriding grammatical principle for "whom"
usage in such examples is "stringwise adjacency to the preposition"
("of whom...", "about whom...").
|
The proper parse here is that the object of "about" is the
clause *"whom I was", so "who" is correct.
The sense of the statement doesn't have to do with "about
whom", but "about (who I was)".
This Liberman, whoever he is or was, would better have said
something like, "The overriding tendency to use the wrong
pronoun is driven by the common misconception that the case
of the pronoun depends only upon whether or not it's
immediately preceded by a preposition". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Zimmer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
Stan Brown wrote:
| Quote: |
"Jay Rayner" <jay.rayner@observer.co.uk> wrote in alt.usage.english:
And dismissing my
novel as rubbish without having read it, because of whom my mother
happens to be, as one contributor did, is about as lazy as it gets.
Dude, that's "who my mother happens to be". You've let your
indignation run away with you.
|
See Mark Liberman's post on the Language Log about NJ's (now-ex-)Gov.
McGreevey's apology for "not having had the courage to be open about
whom I was."
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001632.html
As Liberman puts it, the overriding grammatical principle for "whom"
usage in such examples is "stringwise adjacency to the preposition"
("of whom...", "about whom..."). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Ward
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:34:56 GMT, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:24:53 -0600, John O'Flaherty
quiasmox@yahoo.com> wrote:
At the risk of being cot as a spy, I must ask "what's an 'agony aunt'"?
Ann Landers and the ilk.
|
According to:
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/english/au/aunt.html
In 1811 an aunt was a senior dell. Now what was a dell? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
Jim Ward wrote:
Dude, you should know.
If not, ask a farmer.
--
The Liebs
No relation to delly (aka deli) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
The cheese stands alone. Pass it on.
--
Hi ho -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adrian Bailey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
"Ben Zimmer" <bgzimmer@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:419F7C97.7D724F63@midway.uchicago.edu...
| Quote: | Stan Brown wrote:
"Jay Rayner" <jay.rayner@observer.co.uk> wrote in alt.usage.english:
And dismissing my
novel as rubbish without having read it, because of whom my mother
happens to be, as one contributor did, is about as lazy as it gets.
Dude, that's "who my mother happens to be". You've let your
indignation run away with you.
See Mark Liberman's post on the Language Log about NJ's (now-ex-)Gov.
McGreevey's apology for "not having had the courage to be open about
whom I was."
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001632.html
As Liberman puts it, the overriding grammatical principle for "whom"
usage in such examples is "stringwise adjacency to the preposition"
("of whom...", "about whom...").
|
I think "principle" is putting it too strongly. (As well as wrongly, of
course.)
Adrian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R J Valentine
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:00 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:56:24 GMT Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
....
} At least he isn't apologizing for posting with commercial intent.
}
} This may be a new marketing technique for authors. To supplement the
} book signing and talk radio appearances, the author finds someone to
} post erroneous biographical information about the author and critical
} interpretations of the work. Then, the author writes impassioned
} responses with links to his website and references to the book and its
} availability in your local bookstore.
}
} I note that Rey Aman is occasionally cross with me, so I would be
} willing to write some posts critical of "Maledicta" and the
} publisher's Middle Eastern roots. Rey could then reply with
} corrections and comments with links to his website, ordering
} information, and availability of the new publication.
}
} I'm sure Rey could do so without using a redundancy of adjectives with
} synonymous meaning.
}
} Say the word, Rey, and I'm on your team. We'll gloat together as
} sales go up.
What I want to know is how many copies of the _B-O Schimpfwoerterbuch_ are
left. Last time I checked the website it was nine. When it gets down to
two, I'll be sorely tempted (unless the price goes through the roof).
Isn't it something like MaleDicta.ORG ?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@smart.net> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:00 am
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:20:52 +0100, trio@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:
I haven't seen any such broad sweeping asertions, and this is the first time
I've seen your book mentioned here.
I looked in the archives. It starts here:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=cet5gh$k8h$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk
John Dean raised a question based on the guy's website, there were about
six comments (including, I must add, one from your good self), and then
the discussion moved on to whether CyberCypher had meant to be funny
when he said something or other. I stopped reading, but my impression
that no more was said about "The Apologist."
|
Just goes to show how forgettable it is.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Rayner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:03 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
Charles Riggs <chriggs@comcást.net> wrote in message news:<petup0hq15jts8lrqf8m5kavc85e451s9v@4ax.com>...
| Quote: | On 20 Nov 2004 06:18:00 -0800, jay.rayner@observer.co.uk (Jay Rayner)
wrote:
And of course I was posting as a means to promote my book; my whole
life is devoted to nothing else.
Our lives are not. I suggest you troll in some other group; your
motives were all too obvious to ours.
|
Do I really have to say I was joking? I suppose I do. Believe me,
there are far more efficient ways of promoting my book than this.
Being here is, in fact, a displacement activity from the grisly
business of writing the next one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Malcolm
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:01 pm
Post subject: Re: The Apologist |
|
|
Jay Rayner <jay.rayner@observer.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs <chriggs@comc?st.net> wrote in message news:<petup0hq15jts8lrqf8m5kavc85e451s9v@4ax.com>...
On 20 Nov 2004 06:18:00 -0800, jay.rayner@observer.co.uk (Jay Rayner)
wrote:
And of course I was posting as a means to promote my book; my whole
life is devoted to nothing else.
Our lives are not. I suggest you troll in some other group; your
motives were all too obvious to ours.
Do I really have to say I was joking? I suppose I do. Believe
there are far more efficient ways of promoting my book than this.
Being here is, in fact, a displacement activity from the grisly
business of writing the next one.
|
Of course you shouldn't have to say you were joking, or even <ugh!>
use a "smiley face", not in this of all newsgroups. Unfortunately the
aol educational experiment is having the same sadly predictable effect
on newsgroups as Tony Blair's great idea to improve the education of
the masses by sending half of them to university.
--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:04 pm
Post subject: Re: "about whom I was": Boo! [was: Re: The Apologist] |
|
|
"Bob Cunningham" <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4mgvp0pkf89krfosh11sf6cfunse39seng@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:19:19 -0500, Ben Zimmer
bgzimmer@midway.uchicago.edu> said:
[...]
" [...] not having had the courage to be open about
whom I was."
[...]
As Liberman puts it, the overriding grammatical principle for "whom"
usage in such examples is "stringwise adjacency to the preposition"
("of whom...", "about whom...").
The proper parse here is that the object of "about" is the
clause *"whom I was", so "who" is correct.
The sense of the statement doesn't have to do with "about
whom", but "about (who I was)".
This Liberman, whoever he is or was, would better have said
something like, "The overriding tendency to use the wrong
pronoun is driven by the common misconception that the case
of the pronoun depends only upon whether or not it's
immediately preceded by a preposition".
|
Did you look at what he actually writes? He appears to be analysing and
accounting for the erroneous "whom", not excusing or validating it.
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:06 pm
Post subject: Re: "about whom I was": Boo! [was: Re: The Apologist] |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:01:06 GMT, "Alan Jones"
<atj@blueyonder.co.uk> said:
| Quote: | "Bob Cunningham" <exw6sxq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4mgvp0pkf89krfosh11sf6cfunse39seng@4ax.com...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 12:19:19 -0500, Ben Zimmer
bgzimmer@midway.uchicago.edu> said:
[...]
" [...] not having had the courage to be open about
whom I was."
[...]
As Liberman puts it, the overriding grammatical principle for "whom"
usage in such examples is "stringwise adjacency to the preposition"
("of whom...", "about whom...").
The proper parse here is that the object of "about" is the
clause *"whom I was", so "who" is correct.
The sense of the statement doesn't have to do with "about
whom", but "about (who I was)".
This Liberman, whoever he is or was, would better have said
something like, "The overriding tendency to use the wrong
pronoun is driven by the common misconception that the case
of the pronoun depends only upon whether or not it's
immediately preceded by a preposition".
Did you look at what he actually writes?
|
No. I didn't read it. I guess I should have.
| Quote: | He appears to be analysing and accounting for the
erroneous "whom", not excusing or validating it.
|
I'm glad to hear that, and I apologize to him for my
careless and unsubstantiated criticism of his remarks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in