| Author |
Message |
Alexander Baron
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:41 pm
Post subject: grammar check |
|
|
Can someone tell me which of the following is correct and why? Thanks
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone to the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone with the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:19 pm
Post subject: Re: grammar check |
|
|
"Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0410160141.1961c83a@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | Can someone tell me which of the following is correct and why? Thanks
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone to the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone with the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
|
Both sentences are defective for the same reasons.
1. Wordiness, e.g. "It must be . . ." rather than
"No forensic evidence connects . . . "
2. Defective punctuation: (a) use of a comma to
connect two clauses, (b) second comma is
redundant.
3. Both "inclusive" devices in the last four
words. i.e. both the (s) and the /, are barbarisms.
(They add neither clarity nor cogency: their only
function is pre-emptive defence against supposed
complaints about noninclusive language.)
Better something like:
No forensic evidence connects Stone to the Chilenden
murders. What little evidence there is points to one
or more other people.
But this brings up the rhetorical problem that sentence
#1 is fairly simple but #2 is complex and obscure.
When there is little evidence, why should we say
it suggests any particular person?
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:40 pm
Post subject: Re: grammar check |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:19:53 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
<d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0410160141.1961c83a@posting.google.com...
Can someone tell me which of the following is correct and why? Thanks
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone to the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone with the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
Both sentences are defective for the same reasons.
1. Wordiness, e.g. "It must be . . ." rather than
"No forensic evidence connects . . . "
2. Defective punctuation: (a) use of a comma to
connect two clauses, (b) second comma is
redundant.
3. Both "inclusive" devices in the last four
words. i.e. both the (s) and the /, are barbarisms.
(They add neither clarity nor cogency: their only
function is pre-emptive defence against supposed
complaints about noninclusive language.)
Better something like:
No forensic evidence connects Stone to the Chilenden
murders. What little evidence there is points to one
or more other people.
But this brings up the rhetorical problem that sentence
#1 is fairly simple but #2 is complex and obscure.
When there is little evidence, why should we say
it suggests any particular person?
|
We shouldn't give the impression that it suggests any particular person
unless it does.
How about:
No forensic evidence connects Stone to the Chilenden murders. What little
evidence there is points away from Stone to some person or persons unknown.
"Person or persons unknown" is, I believe, a standard legal phrase.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:48 pm
Post subject: Re: grammar check |
|
|
On 16 Oct 2004, Peter Duncanson wrote
| Quote: | On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:19:53 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote:
"Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0410160141.1961c83a@posting.google.com...
Can someone tell me which of the following is correct and why?
Thanks
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone to the Chillenden murders, and what
little evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other
individual(s) was/were responsible.
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone with the Chillenden murders, and what
little evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other
individual(s) was/were responsible.
Both sentences are defective for the same reasons.
1. Wordiness...
2. Defective punctuation...
3. Both "inclusive" devices in the last four words.
|
-snip
| Quote: | We shouldn't give the impression that it suggests any particular
person unless it does.
-snip- |
Both answers are all very interesting, but Alexander asked for a
comparison of the two given sentences -- not a critique of the writing
style itself.
The only apparent difference is "connects Stone to" and "connects Stone
with", and to address that question: I'm not certain about correctness
here, but "connects Stone with" sounds more idiomatic to my ear.
(I would use "links Stone to", but "connects Stone with".)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:59 pm
Post subject: Re: grammar check |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:19:53 -0400 "Don
Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> posted:
| Quote: | "Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0410160141.1961c83a@posting.google.com...
Can someone tell me which of the following is correct and why? Thanks
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone to the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone with the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
|
One or the other may be more common, but to and with are both fine.
| Quote: |
Both sentences are defective for the same reasons.
1. Wordiness, e.g. "It must be . . ." rather than
"No forensic evidence connects . . . "
|
There may have been a good reason to include the first 6 words.
Perhaps this is meant to be a script, and the speaker wants to give a
basis for repeating what he has said already. Long sentences don't
seem so long when delivered orally with the right intonation and
phrasing.
| Quote: | 2. Defective punctuation: (a) use of a comma to
connect two clauses,
|
That's ok, unless it is unclear.
| Quote: | (b) second comma is redundant.
|
When you take out the second comma, it is surely clear.
| Quote: | 3. Both "inclusive" devices in the last four
words. i.e. both the (s) and the /, are barbarisms.
|
I agree they shouldn't be used. For one thing, there is no good way
to read such "words".
| Quote: | (They add neither clarity nor cogency: their only
function is pre-emptive defence against supposed
complaints about noninclusive language.)
|
If you mean including the possibility that one person did it, or more
than one, I agree.
| Quote: | Better something like:
No forensic evidence connects Stone to the Chilenden
murders. What little evidence there is points to one
or more other people.
But this brings up the rhetorical problem that sentence
#1 is fairly simple but #2 is complex and obscure.
When there is little evidence, why should we say
it suggests any particular person?
|
Because it might be enough. I took individual to be meant as a
synonym for person. "Person" would be better however, because... well
I can't describe it, but "individual" is an unnecessarily fancy way to
say person, and probably has connotations that person doesn't. Maybe
that's what you are saying too.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:15 pm
Post subject: Re: grammar check |
|
|
"meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:3594n0p340edia7qfrbk9ci0ai587mq6sb@4ax.com...
| Quote: | In alt.english.usage on Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:19:53 -0400 "Don
Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> posted:
"Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0410160141.1961c83a@posting.google.com...
Can someone tell me which of the following is correct and why? Thanks
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone to the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone with the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
One or the other may be more common, but to and with are both fine.
Both sentences are defective for the same reasons.
1. Wordiness, e.g. "It must be . . ." rather than
"No forensic evidence connects . . . "
There may have been a good reason to include the first 6 words.
Perhaps this is meant to be a script, and the speaker wants to give a
basis for repeating what he has said already. Long sentences don't
seem so long when delivered orally with the right intonation and
phrasing.
|
Most language students seem to hold the opposite
opinion: (1) they generally prefer shorter sentences in
oral speech than writing permits, (2) the right intonation
and phrasing allows long or grammatically complex speech
to be understood: but does not ipso facto make a
sentence seem shorter.
| Quote: | 3. Both "inclusive" devices in the last four
words. i.e. both the (s) and the /, are barbarisms.
I agree they shouldn't be used. For one thing, there is no good way
to read such "words".
|
Is this not sufficient evidence this example was
not written for oral delivery?
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:17 am
Post subject: Re: grammar check |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:15:52 -0400 "Don
Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> posted:
| Quote: | "meirman" <meirman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:3594n0p340edia7qfrbk9ci0ai587mq6sb@4ax.com...
In alt.english.usage on Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:19:53 -0400 "Don
Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> posted:
"Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0410160141.1961c83a@posting.google.com...
Can someone tell me which of the following is correct and why? Thanks
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone to the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone with the Chillenden murders, and what little
evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other individual(s)
was/were responsible.
One or the other may be more common, but to and with are both fine.
Both sentences are defective for the same reasons.
1. Wordiness, e.g. "It must be . . ." rather than
"No forensic evidence connects . . . "
There may have been a good reason to include the first 6 words.
Perhaps this is meant to be a script, and the speaker wants to give a
basis for repeating what he has said already. Long sentences don't
seem so long when delivered orally with the right intonation and
phrasing.
Most language students seem to hold the opposite
opinion: (1) they generally prefer shorter sentences in
oral speech than writing permits,
|
But that is not the opposite opinion of what I said. It would all
right with me if there were a leading sentence that said what the
first 6 words said. But afaict, the thought they conveyed was just
deleted.
| Quote: | (2) the right intonation
and phrasing allows long or grammatically complex speech
to be understood: but does not ipso facto make a
sentence seem shorter.
|
This otoh is the opposite of what I said, but I really meant "long,
tedious, boring, and hard to understand" Nor is the original sentence
so complex. If one started out, where the first two ellipses indicate
medium length pauses, "It *must be stressed again*...that...there is
not a *shred* of forensic evidence [rest of sentence]", it would be
very understandable.
| Quote: | 3. Both "inclusive" devices in the last four
words. i.e. both the (s) and the /, are barbarisms.
I agree they shouldn't be used. For one thing, there is no good way
to read such "words".
Is this not sufficient evidence this example was
not written for oral delivery?
|
Not to me. It may be an early draft of a speech, leaving it to the
speaker, who will review it in advance, to decide which way to say it.
And I think there were two problems here. In this case they are given
in the same example, but the next time the OP or other readers need
to think about it, it may be that only one of these problems occurs.
And even if this very paragraph is not to be delivered orally, there
can still be a good reason for keeping the first 6 words. An oration
was the first example that came to mind.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alexander Baron
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:55 am
Post subject: Re: grammar check |
|
|
| Quote: | Most language students seem to hold the opposite
opinion: (1) they generally prefer shorter sentences in
oral speech than writing permits, (2) the right intonation
and phrasing allows long or grammatically complex speech
to be understood: but does not ipso facto make a
sentence seem shorter.
They generally? Split infinitive, surely? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:36 pm
Post subject: Re: grammar check |
|
|
Alexander Baron typed thus:
| Quote: | Most language students seem to hold the opposite
opinion: (1) they generally prefer shorter sentences in
oral speech than writing permits, (2) the right intonation
and phrasing allows long or grammatically complex speech
to be understood: but does not ipso facto make a
sentence seem shorter.
They generally? Split infinitive, surely?
|
a) no it isn't;
b) you think that would be bad?
--
David
=====
replace the first component of address
with the definite article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cljlk
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:45 pm
Post subject: Re: grammar check |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95848C8D036F7whhvans@62.253.162.203>...
| Quote: | On 16 Oct 2004, Peter Duncanson wrote
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:19:53 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote:
"Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0410160141.1961c83a@posting.google.com...
Can someone tell me which of the following is correct and why?
Thanks
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone to the Chillenden murders, and what
little evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other
individual(s) was/were responsible.
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone with the Chillenden murders, and what
little evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other
individual(s) was/were responsible.
Both sentences are defective for the same reasons.
1. Wordiness...
2. Defective punctuation...
3. Both "inclusive" devices in the last four words.
-snip
We shouldn't give the impression that it suggests any particular
person unless it does.
-snip-
Both answers are all very interesting, but Alexander asked for a
comparison of the two given sentences -- not a critique of the writing
style itself.
The only apparent difference is "connects Stone to" and "connects Stone
with", and to address that question: I'm not certain about correctness
here, but "connects Stone with" sounds more idiomatic to my ear.
(I would use "links Stone to", but "connects Stone with".)
|
I am not the original poster. I think by using "link", it probably is better.
By the way, would you please explain what the different between "connect to"
and "connect with" are? When should I use "connect to" or "connect with"?
Would you please give me some examples?
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:20 pm
Post subject: Re: grammar check |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2004, cljlk wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns95848C8D036F7whhvans@62.253.162.203>...
On 16 Oct 2004, Peter Duncanson wrote
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:19:53 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote:
"Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0410160141.1961c83a@posting.google.com...
Can someone tell me which of the following is correct and why?
Thanks
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of
forensic evidence connecting Stone to the Chillenden murders,
and what little evidence there is, appears to indicate that
some other individual(s) was/were responsible.
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of
forensic evidence connecting Stone with the Chillenden
murders, and what little evidence there is, appears to
indicate that some other individual(s) was/were responsible.
Both sentences are defective for the same reasons.
1. Wordiness...
2. Defective punctuation...
3. Both "inclusive" devices in the last four words.
-snip
We shouldn't give the impression that it suggests any particular
person unless it does.
-snip-
Both answers are all very interesting, but Alexander asked for a
comparison of the two given sentences -- not a critique of the
writing style itself.
The only apparent difference is "connects Stone to" and "connects
Stone with", and to address that question: I'm not certain about
correctness here, but "connects Stone with" sounds more idiomatic
to my ear.
(I would use "links Stone to", but "connects Stone with".)
I am not the original poster. I think by using "link", it probably
is better. By the way, would you please explain what the different
between "connect to"
and "connect with" are? When should I use "connect to" or
"connect with"?
|
I'm not sure if there's a technical difference -- nor if there's even a
useful rule of thumb -- but perhaps one of the ESL teachers will
address the question.
Idiomatically, though -- and acknowledging that it's not a fixed rule -
- I think I would use "connect to" when the link is one-way and
"connect with" when it's two-way.
| Quote: | Would you please give me some examples?
|
I would tend to say that my telephone is physically "connected to" the
telephone network, but that when I'm calling my sister, we have
"connected with" one another.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Takao Ueda
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:53 am
Post subject: Re: grammar check |
|
|
cljlk@hotmail.com (cljlk) wrote in message news:<de74637.0410180445.2e7766b2@posting.google.com>...
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95848C8D036F7whhvans@62.253.162.203>...
"Alexander Baron" <A_Baron@ABaron.Demon.Co.UK> wrote in message
news:10503184.0410160141.1961c83a@posting.google.com...
Can someone tell me which of the following is correct and why?
Thanks
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone to the Chillenden murders, and what
little evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other
individual(s) was/were responsible.
It must be stressed again that there is not a shred of forensic
evidence connecting Stone with the Chillenden murders, and what
little evidence there is, appears to indicate that some other
individual(s) was/were responsible.
The only apparent difference is "connects Stone to" and "connects Stone
with", and to address that question: I'm not certain about correctness
here, but "connects Stone with" sounds more idiomatic to my ear.
(I would use "links Stone to", but "connects Stone with".)
I am not the original poster. I think by using "link", it probably is better.
By the way, would you please explain what the different between "connect to"
and "connect with" are? When should I use "connect to" or "connect with"?
Would you please give me some examples?
Thanks.
|
The distinction is not so clear-cut, but I use "connect to"
to suggest a physical connection and "connect with" to suggest
a non-physical relationship. So, in the above case, I say
"connects Stone with."
Examples.
The bridge connects one island to another.
He is connected with a wealthy family. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in