- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
- Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Other Series
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
Admin
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/begs.html
Admin
Nagesh Nagesh Nagesh!
Admin
Here's an article by Pullam elsewhere that doesn't assume that you've read any of the related Language Log posts.
Admin
No, you're thinking of Old Man Swampy...
Admin
Admin
This obviously dates me!
Admin
Admin
Who hasn't done a thing like that?
Admin
Did you read the article, or just cite it? As I said, he discusses the stylistic advice in great detail, and very well, but there is nothing in there of grammar in the linguistic sense - because the work he's criticizing has nothing in it of grammar in the linguistic sense.
He does use some terminology (relative clause, for example) which is also used in serious linguistics, but I think if you look you'll find that linguistics borrowed that from the prescriptive "Mrs. Grundy" grammarians.
His discussion of the correct verbal agreement with "none" (whether to use the singular or plural when the "none" means "not one [of the whole]") is as close as he comes to a matter for formal linguistics, but he resolves it by an appeal to the literature rather than by formulating a rule, so again he's taking part in a war between diferent sorts of prescriptions, not a war between prescriptivists and "real linguists". This isn't a problem - again, Howard McGee is allowed to write about cooking, even though he's a physicist, and likewise a linguist can write a prescriptivist style guide, or criticize one. And just as McGee can use his understanding of Maillard reactions to inform his advice on grilling, so too can Pullum be informed by his understanding or serious linguistic analysis when he commits a work of prescriptivist grammarianism. But this isn't a work of linguistics, and I don't think that Pullum intends it to be one.
Admin
His name, his name, his name.
...what?
Admin
From my dead tree copy of The New Oxford Dictionary of English, printed 1998: Beg the Question:
It then has a box on usage notes , where it says (in summary, I'm not going to type it all) that although the original usage was in the field of logic, the more general use has arisen over the last 100 years, is by far the most common use today, and is widely excepted in modern standard English.
So I doubt it is damage from your generation (unless you are about 140 years old ofc)
Admin
The OP is wrong to imply that Truss had a strong opinion on the matter. The wording she used does not commit her either way:
"Interestingly, Kingsley Amis says that those who smugly object to the hyphenation of the phrase "fine tooth-comb" are quite wrong to assert the phrase ought really to be punctuated "fine-tooth comb". Evidently there really used to be a kind of comb called a tooth-comb, and you could buy it in varieties of fineness."
To me this reads that both forms of punctuation are correct, at least devoid of any particular context.
Admin
Or that could be taken as, oh, what's the word? Sarcasm, yes, I think that's it.
Admin
That reminds me of an email sigline I once spotted in the wild:
XML is like violence. If it's not working then you're just not using enough of it.
Admin
A tip of the hat to you, sir. Extremely well played.
Admin
Zipped strings containing HTML rather then XML would allow for CSS which could force all data to have the same style. This would make SOAP a useless standard.
Admin
as in a comb that has (very) fine teeth....
Admin
I've seen lots of arguments about that on the internets, and I must say, I don't entirely degree. Clearly there is a use of 'Begs the Question' - and this is what people like you argue "What it means", but I'm gonna tread a dangerous line....
Beg (v) = Ask Question (v) = question
Begs the question can literally be used in the way that dgvid did. Doesn't matter that the phrase may have been used other way (or even may have been used to mean something totally different), the usage above is perfectly cromulent.
Just because the expression is commonly used in a different sense does not take away any literal meaning to that particular string of words - no matter how much you English puritans insist that we are destroying the language.
Can't help but sense some irony in the fact that stagnant languages that refuse to change are more likely to die off than evolving languages...
I hear Latin today is still much the same as it was a thousand years ago, maybe you should learn that instead.... DISCLAIMER: I didn't actually hear that about Latin, and I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong, and that it has in fact evolved (perhaps into Italian)
Admin
For those of you who enjoy reading the little comments Remy leaves in her stories, but don't like wading through the HTML source, here's a bookmarklet to make your life better:
(function(){var div=(document.getElementsByClassName("ArticleBody")||[])[0];div.innerHTML = div.innerHTML.replace(/<!--([\s\S]*?)-->/g,"<em style="color:#FF0000">$1");})()
Admin
Admin
Even Remy's summary was longer than a single sentence
Admin
Who reads the dictionary?
(For some reason I think of John Lithgow in "Third Rock from the Sun"....'Every word in that essay is plagiarised...Has none of you read...."The Dictionary"?'
Admin
Oh Lisa, facts don't mean anything. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
Admin
Oh Lisa, facts don't mean anything. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
Admin
I'm gonna assume you're not trolling (although past experience should warn me otherwise), but if we ignore dictionaries (and reasonably mainstream ones), we find ourselves in a position where we just have to believe the people in the know (like yourself) - who point us to websites with far less credibility than a dictionary. Once we descend into such a world (where we are taking your word over all credible resources), we are in a position where we should believe a dictionary you produce anyways.
Either way, this means if you create a dictionary that says otherwise, we must be inclined to agree with your definition.
Admin
+1
That guy, and the show, were awsome!
Admin
I see, so having more than 1 way to do something is a bad thing...
Sure they're not identical (neither are the two phrases), but as written (that is, as expressions on their own), they all have the same affect (as would ++x;, for that matter). Perhaps a bad example, because many people would say allowing all of these constructs to exist as statements on their own is a bad thing, but that's another kettle of eels...
Admin
"Thesis" - aha that explains a lot. Suggests Masters or Doctorate or some such really useful qualification.
Should we start the debate on whether Tertiary education is any good or not again?
Admin
And given this obsession with linguistics, does all the hogwash about "begs the question" actually matter? I mean, in the grand scheme of things...
Admin
Suggests any number of things. The actual fact is that I went to school and got a bachelor's in linguistics at an institution that required a thesis for that degree. Never worked as a linguist, and never pursued further work in it, but I think I'm in a pretty good situation to talk about linguistics, or to know when I reach the edge of my knowledge and how to extend that edge. Someone who reads that Pullum article - which is quite good, for what it is - and thinks they've read a linguistics article clearly hasn't even the start of a clue about what linguistics studies. Hint: it's not concerned with clarity of exposition, or graceful development of an intellectual position, and how that's best to be done in the English language. Just read Michael Silverstein if you want to be convinced of that.
Second hint: it's more to do with understanding the internal structures of languages as reflected by our external performance of those languages. To put it very briefly.
Sure, go ahead if you like. I'll be over here trying to become less abysmally ignorant about math, because that's fun, but knock yourself out.
Admin
Probably not, but that shouldn't stop intelligent discussion...
Admin
... says the guy who never graduated high school...
Admin
Admin
I'm probably echoing what many other people have said in response to this, but yes, it is. It is crazy to write an XML writing layer and a parser and create the most verbose protocol imaginable when you personally are writing both the client and the server and have a library which will reliably bundle up your binary objects for you and unbundle them at the other end.
Here's a good example for you: You're writing a web app. Would you have the javascript frontend and backend communicate over ajax using XML which needs some heavy parsing in the browser and the client side, special data structures, basically a whole lot of bespoke code... or JSON, which passes objects directly via a serialisation library?
Use the right tools for the job and you'll have a much easier life.
Admin
... or even a thread on this website.
Admin
I have a tooth-comb. I use it every morning. You see, a number of my teeth have fallen out, leaving a gap in my smile that I makes me very self-conscious. So I have let the teeth on one side of my mouth grow quite long, and I pull them over to cover the gap, applying a little Brylcreem to help them stick in place (or so I hope).
I do this with my tooth-comb.
Admin
Now that hastur be a mistake. It hastur be. It just hastur.
Admin
Even if it's intelligent, it's still stupid.
Admin
yo dawg, I heard you like serialization...
Admin
+1
I thought the same thing too, but didn't because I figured someone beat me to it.
Admin
Admin
Everybody thought the same thing...
Admin
I don't know how you would expect Pullum to "formulate a rule" about written English without looking a written English.
Your main complaint, so far as I can tell, is that Pullum doesn't use much jargon. Since the article isn't in a linguistics journal, that's not really a weakness.
Admin
As the original poster says: xml is useful if you want to transfer data between hetrogeneous systems. And OMG do not write your own silly parsing mechanisms with the likes of instr etc. Use XMLDOM for MS stuff and, for instance, simpleXML if going into php land.
Admin
I'm not complaining about the article. It's a well-written diatribe, tilting at a widely-loved windmill. Makes you think a little about Strunk and White, and that's a good thing. I still think that Strunk and White is about the only really good single volume on writing in English, even if I disagree with most of they prescriptions, and I like getting into Pullum's head and seeing what he thinks of the work.
What I'm saying is, the criticism is not linguistics. Linguistics is a science that deals with the formal structure of the language - that's what Pullum does in his day job.
But that's not the issue, is it? Here he's looking at written English without forumlating, or indeed without citing any of the sort of rules that characterize formal linguistics.
Here, he's looking at written English and discussing it without reference to the sorts of formal analysis that constitute the science of linguistics. So, what he's doing is really not very different from what Strunk and White do; in fact, he's arguing with them on their ground and doing a good job of it. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't then say this is an example of a paper in linguistics, any more than Don Knuth's recipe for a beef chili, or his review of a new Thai place in Menlo Park would be a paper in computer science.
I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. You might easily talk about S&W from a linguistic perspective, and I'm sure it's been done. For example, you might look at why the syntactic choice of active voice is considered "more clear" than the passive by some readers. This could be done in terms of syntax - for example, in good old x-bar you'd probably want to show that more transformations are needed to convert the passive to the active (which that theory assumed as the underlying form). This would be something like explaining the physical properties of a molecule in terms of the chemical model used to describe that molecule. "It's more stable because it has more double-bonds" or something like that - chem is not my strong suit, excuse my poor example. Or you could even cite previous work of that sort to support or undermine S&W's claim, without doing that work on your own, then at least you're making use of linguistics. You might do some psycholinguistics - strap some subjects into chairs and test their response times for different constructions, take some brain measurments, see if they're processed differently. Or just cite such research, again.
But Pullum doesn't do anything that actually involves linguistics in this paper: he's objecting to S&W's stylistic advice, and he's doing it as another prescriptive grammarian. Having done that, he puts his linguist hat on again and goes off and does linguistics, which is his day job.
Really, if you can spot any actual linguistics in the paper, please point it out to me.
Admin
Okay. I'd eliminate any product advertised with the sales pitch, "Do X without writing any code!"
Every such product that I've been forced to use turns out to mean by this: Do X without writing any code in a well-known computer language like Java [or COBOL or C or whatever depending on the era]! Instead, we've invented a whole new computer language that is more difficult to write, more difficult to maintain, has poor error checking, and is full of bugs! But you don't have to write any Java, so this is clearly a huge step forward!
Admin
True dat. Or it's some sort of supposedly transparent visual interface that is obvious only to the person who designed it, which is generating horrendously ugly code behind the scenes. I used to work with a guy who was waiting for fifth-generation programming languages the way some Xians wait for the Rapture, and with the same trembling anticipation. "It'll be a purely visual programming system... no code at all!" The idea makes me sort of queasy.
Funny thing is, the guy's one of the best programmers I've ever worked with, a really top-notch brain. Just a little weird on this subject, that's all.
Admin
As for your specific suggestion: in science (including linguistics), it's a good idea to collect evidence before you try to explain it. Before you can ask "why do some readers consider the active voice 'more clear'?" you ask "do some readers consider the active voice 'more clear'?" And before you even do that, you should know what you're trying to measure, so you need to ask, "is the claim being made here that active voice is clearer than passive voice?" From the examples it seems the answer is "no," so looking for a difference in clarity between passive and active sentences would be irrelevant. Trying to explain the difference with syntax theory, without having looked for—let alone found—such a difference, would be really irrelevant.
I suppose you could transfer the whole "analyze it in terms of syntax" suggestion to the discussion of "However." But in that case, S&W haven't provided evidence in support of their claim that good writing doesn't have sentences starting with "However," so you'd need to look for such evidence first. Pullum does so (and doesn't find any). It is the looking for evidence that makes this linguistics, rather than just a disagreement about style.
Would you agree that it was linguistics if he'd used the term "corpus analysis?"
TL;DR: I agree that Don Knuth's hypothetical restaurant reviews wouldn't be computer science papers. However, while a code review from Don Knuth probably also wouldn't be a computer science paper, it would involve computer science.
Admin