Job Discussion Forums

[Serious_Fun]

[fluffyhamster]

S_F, what the *beep* is wrong with 'students looking to improve their knowledge'? And are you sure it's exactly a cracking example of a 'phrasal verb'? More to the point, how would you rephrase things there for CUP?

[johnslat]

Dear Serious_Fun,

"This new level of English Phrasal Verbs in Use is specifically designed for advanced level students looking to improve their knowledge of this often difficult area of the English language."

I believe that "looking to" in the sentence above is being used as an participle adjective modifying the noun "students."
The whole participle phrase, "looking to improve their knowledge of this often difficult area of the English language" is a reduced adjective clause:

. . . . students (who are) looking to improve their knowledge of this often difficult area of the English language.

It doesn't sound incorrect to me, but then perhaps that's because I've been immersed too long in this land of "pop culture."

Regards,
John

P.S. Regarding McDonald's burgers' being "spiked", there was a case here in New Mexico recently. Two McDonald's employees spiked the burgers of two police officers with marijuana. I'm loving it.

[blackmagicABC]

Soapdodger,
I am interested in your answer. If you feel willing to share, please PM me regarding material you have published. It would be very interesting.

I actually really enjoyed reading this thread. I did consider for a few short moments (very short and not many moments) to post a reply but this will suffice.

[Justin Trullinger]

[johnslat]

Ah, my mistake - sorry McDonald's; it was the competition that did it:


ALBUQUERQUE: Two police officers have sued Burger King Corp., alleging personal injury, negligence, battery and violation of fair practices after they were served hamburgers that had been sprinkled with marijuana.

"It gives a whole new meaning to the word 'Whopper,'" plaintiffs attorney Sam Bregman said Monday. "The idea that these hoodlums would put marijuana into a hamburger and therefore attempt to impair law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs is outrageous."

But no jail time for the potburger maker:

A former Burger King employee charged with serving burgers laced with marijuana to two Isleta police officers was sentenced to three years probation on Monday.

[soapdodger]

Now that's a crime! Obviously the man is a marketing genius who should be elevated to head office. Burger King is going to get a massive increase in sales as a result of his canny action. I'm sure there are alot of members of Albuquerque police who wish he hadn't been ratted on too!!!

[Justin Trullinger]

At least the pot was probably organic. Some of the things that get into the burgers by "accident" really frighten me. (E Coli, cow *beep*, rat parts...) But I guess a little extra "salad" shouldn't be a problem...




Justin

[Llamalicious]

The one that gets me is the misuse of the saying, 'the exception proves the rule.'

Someone will make an inane, over-generalising statement. I will point out that this is not always the case. "Ah," I will hear, "but the exception proves the rule." Aaaaarrrggghhh! As if a theory being shown to be false somehow legitimises it as being true. That is not what it means! 'Proves' is being used here with the meaning of 'tests' (as in a 'proving ground,' where new hardware is tested to make sure it works). In other words, evidence that contradicts the theory, tests it. If the theory can assimilate the new findings, it is still valid. If it cannot, then THE THEORY IS WRONG.

/Llamalicious, wide-eyed and panting heavily, seriously considers doing what the little voices in his head have been begging him to do for years.

[johnslat]

Dear Llamalicious (great user-name, by the way),
It's not "proves" that gets misinterpreted, it's "exception":


You�re right to query the expression. It has caused as much confusion as any other in the language and is often argued about. The misunderstanding has been amplified by well-meaning but incorrect attempts going back a century to explain it.
These days it is often used sweepingly to justify an inconsistency. Those who use it seem to be saying that the existence of a case that doesn�t follow a rule proves the rule applies in all other cases and so is generally correct, notwithstanding the exception. This is nonsense, because the logical implication of finding that something doesn�t follow a rule is that there must be something wrong with the rule. As the old maxim has it, you need find only one white crow to disprove the rule that all crows are black.
It has often been suggested in reference works that prove here is really being used in the sense of �test� (as it does in terms like �proving ground� or �the proof of the pudding is in the eating�, or in the printer�s proof, which is a test page run off to see that all is correct with the typesetting). It is said that the real idea behind the saying is that the presence of what looks like an exception tests whether a rule is really valid or not. If you can�t reconcile the supposed exception with the rule, there must indeed be something wrong with the rule. The expression is indeed used in this sense, but that�s not where it comes from or what it strictly means.
The problem with that attempted explanation is that those putting it forward have picked on the wrong word to challenge. It�s not a false sense of proof that causes the problem, but exception. We think of it as meaning some case that doesn�t follow the rule, but the original sense was of someone or something that is granted permission not to follow a rule that otherwise applies. The true origin of the phrase lies in a medieval Latin legal principle: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which may be translated as �the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted�.
Let us say that you drive down a street somewhere and find a notice which says �Parking prohibited on Sundays�. You may reasonably infer from this that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week. A sign on a museum door which says �Entry free today� leads to the implication that entry is not free on other days (unless it�s a marketing ploy like the never-ending sales that some stores have, but let�s not get sidetracked). H W Fowler gave an example from his wartime experience: �Special leave is given for men to be out of barracks tonight until 11pm�, which implies a rule that in other cases men must be in barracks before that time. So, in its strict sense, the principle is arguing that the existence of an allowed exception to a rule reaffirms the existence of the rule.
Despite the number of reference books which carefully explain the origin and true meaning of the expression, it is unlikely that it will ever be restored to strict correctness. The usual rule in lexicography is that sayings progress towards corruption and decay, never the reverse. Unless this one proves to be an exception ...

Regards,
John

[Llamalicious]

John, you are a scholar and a gentleman. Consider my cap doffed.

[Mike_2007]

Great post from John. Thanks.

Here's an interesting website that goes into the history of many words and expressions:

http://www.worldwidewords.org/index.htm

Mike

[Thwartley]

[arioch36]

[soapdodger]

Well, would you believe it!!! It transpires that the "I'm Loving It" slogan was thought up for McDonalds by Publicis, a French advertising agency. A cunning Gallic attempt to distort English in revenge for taking their spot as Number One international language, methinks!