From: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Re: quite unique research?
Reply-To: gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:20:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.175556.12116@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>To be honest, I couldn't care less if you trust or respect me, Roger, because
>>you have not proven _yourself_ to be respectable.  As for your analogy, it
>>flounders because the English language is not your piece of work.  It is
>
>But my uses of it are.  And it is this or that use that you are criticizing.

What is this, class-action linguistics?  Roger comes to the defense of
all those who want to use "most unique" and "irregardless" and the
like?  Somehow I doubt those things are full-blown characteristics of
your speech or writing.

>Sorry, Gabe, but that's just not so.  All opinions are equally valid -- 
>if you assign them the default value of zero.  Opinions gain in value 
>through their support.  Through argument and evidence.  

True, and most careful writers of today would not use "most unique," and
as such it gains in value.

>>And yes, you get a little more than "testy."  You become insolent and
>>contemptuously rude.
>
>Be more precise about what's judgment and what's opinion, and this 
>won't happen ever again, I promise.

Wow!  Can I have that in writing?

For goodness sake, we're dealing with a field in which there is so much
data and so many variants that there *are* no facts.  Dictionaries don't
tell the whole story (as some of your messages implied), neither does
Evans & Evans, Strunk & White, or Fowler.

>Well, I must say it finally worked.  You've admitted that the things
>you wrote in the style of judgments were only meant to be opinions,
>and that's a big step.  Now how about reworking your style to make 
>this clearer?  

We're in a *usage* newsgroup.  Everything is opinion.  Usage is all
opinion, be it yours, mine, or anyone else's.  I've just been sitting
here for months writing them, watching you jump up and down and bang
on the table, asking everyone to justify everything they write with
library citations...something I have no intention of doing in the near
future.  

>Or giving some of the sources of your opinions? I
>bet they'd be genuinely fascinating.

One of these days...perhaps when you stop threatening me with
two-by-fours, and after I finish mopping up all that prejudice that
you claim I've spattered everywhere.

>>>>There are many others...Fowler, S&W, etc. who disagree, and
>>>Actually,  it's hard to tell.
>>Not really.  You only have to read them.
>I did.  So did others, one of whom has pointed out that Ted's count
>is highly questionable.

Perhaps, but it does show that there are other points of view equally
valid to that shared by you and Evans&Evans. 

>>>But that it's in the dictionary means that people *do* use it
>
>>So?  People use "axe" and "irregardless" too and can be understood, and I'm
>>sure they appear in some dictionary somewhere.  That doesn't mean anything.
>
>Well, then, if it doesn't mean anything, why are there dictionaries? 

Generally speaking, to provide an account of what is going on in the
language at the time of their compilation, not to indicate what the
best speakers and writers do.  Every word in the dictionary is not to
be embraced.

>>Perhaps, but I suspect that most good and careful writers would still use
>>infer to indicate what the person receiving is doing, and imply to indicate
>>what the person sending is doing.
>
>Well, now, that's a bit more moderate, and easier to agree with.  We're 
>down to suspicions about most careful writers, as opposed to assertions 
>about all careful writers.

And to that end, to *not* use them in that form is to lose a shade of
meaning which is valuable.


--
Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings 
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu       to be seriously considered as a means of 
N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english