Job Discussion Forums

[xnihil]

I've always used them (and taught them) interchangebly. But Stephen's answer makes good sense to me. I just goes to show how finely an instrument language can be (but rarely is) used to express delicate shades of meaning.

[Stephen Jones]

I'm just curious whether others concur with the gerund vs. infinitive difference in meaning. As an American, I don't believe we follow such a rule. Is this a British thing, or was I asleep when they taught that part?

I suspect the difference is a British one; the explanation comes from British textbooks. Most times they are used interchangeably; I suspect the Americans prefer the infinitive over the gerund.

If you want a pair of examples to make things clear, then plenty of people who believe in oral hygien would say

I lke to go to the dentist every six months

but only a masochist would say

I like going to the dentist every six months

[Tripmaster Monkey]

That's an interesting example. Thanks. By the way, to get back to an earlier question, where exactly does one find this kind of info? Specifically, I know it lurks in pieces all over, but what is the definitive, comprehensive resource? Is there even such a thing? I've wondered about this for years.

[Stephen Jones]

I think we will have to accept "singlarity" and presumably "plurality" can be used to describe grammatical number.

Because they have other much more common meanings I suggest we should avoid them by recasting the phrase, changing "the singularity of 'the name' to "the fact that name is singular" and "the plurality of 'identical clones'" to "the fact that 'identical clones' are plural."

I've checked out a few more of the sites you mention and "singulairity" does ocurr, though normally only about once compared to a couple of dozen ocurrences of 'singular'.

[xnihil]

An interesting aspect of this conversation is that we're relying on usage to determine our grammar. I have a suspicion that, twenty years ago, this would have been anathama.

As has been noted before language seems to be a democratic type of process. If many people begin making the same error, then in the eyes of the linguists, it becomes standard.

It is the classic debate between descriptive and proscriptive usage.

Even though I know I'm bucking the tide here, I tend toward the proscriptive camp.

If "singularity" has traditionally meant "unique" but a dozen people get confused and use it for "the quality of oneness" do the rest of the people who have been using it correctly suddenly become wrong?

To give an extreme example:

Many of my professors (among others) would get the words inductive and deductive confused. They would try to explain it and invariably get it backwards. Now, there are huge swaths of people I come accross who don't really know the difference. Since I do know the difference, am I wrong now?

Some of my students are shocked when I tell them that there is no official language board for English. No commitee who's job it is to set the standard for the rest of the English speakers in the world. When I tell them this, they look at each other as if to say "so that's why this language is so F-in hard to learn!"

I politly explain that it is also what makes our language so dynamic, but they couldn't give a rat's As about that.

The question posted above is an interesting one. What is the authority for English grammar and usage?

Sorry for the long ramble.

[Stephen Jones]

The standard authority for Bitish English is "A Contemporary Grammar of English" by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leechans Svartivk. There is an abridged version called "A University Grammar of English" by Quirk and Greenbaum. They were both based on a thorough survey of contemporary English that is ow 35 years old, so your 20 year theory goes out the window.

The generally accepted dictionary is the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. You shoud be able to get it free on a cover CD for a computer magazine. For acceptable collocations and meanings the CoBuild which Arioch36 referred to is considered the best. Unfortunately the full online version is subsription only, else we could have solved the singularity problem more quicklyl

The Americans generally plump either for Merriam-Webster or The American Heritage. The latter tends to be more conservative.

The web source for American English is www.bartelby.com and it gives both the American Hetirage and Columbia books on usage.

One thing to note is that in general the Americans tend to be much more resistant to periceived "incorrectness" than the British. This shows especially when the "rule" in question has never in fact existed, as is the case with proscribing split infinitives.

Incidentally one normally contrasts desciptive grammar with prescriptive grammar.

However your typo is probably a Freudian slip. Many unfortunately replace a prescriptive grammar, which tells us what we should do, with a proscriptive grammar which concentrates on telling us what we can't do.

[guest of Japan]

I keep inductive vs. deductive in context by contrasting Aristotle to Plato.

Plato was pretty much the originator of deductive thinking, which is most commonly used in the teaching of law.

Aristotle was pretty much the originator of inductive thinking, which is most commonly used in the sciences.

If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear about it. Mark

[andrew murphy]

Dear Stephen,

Obviously choosing the plural instead of the singular would have an affect on pronunciation. However I made no reference to this. What I am suggesting is that the diffrence influences phrasing.

Name does have an effect on one inasmuch as I am suggesting that one of the students is the logical antecedent.

[johnslat]

Dear guest of Japan,
I've always used Sherlock Holmes as my memory aid for deduction - from the general ( the clues ) to the specific ( the perp ). And for induction, I use the scientific method, from the specific ( the experiments ) to the general ( the theory ).
Regards,
John

[Stephen Jones]

Dear Andrew,

I was including phrasing in pronunciation, as it is part of the way you say the sentence. There is no difference in the phrasing of the two sentences.

'Name' has no effect on 'one' whatsoever. 'Name' can be singular and 'one' can be pural (yep!) and 'name' can be plural and 'one' can be singular.

Example: You're looking for a very dangerous terrorist who goes under many aliases. You tell your assistant: "I want all the names of the one we're looking for".

Example: You are a character is some really crappy science fiction film. You go to an obscure suburb of uptown Auckland to find that some strange malignant larvae have eaten the livers of all the EFL teachers in the vicinity. Your assistant tells you that there are hundreds of known organisms partial to said delicacy and only DNA testing can say which particular organism is responsible. You tell your assistant: "I want the name of the ones that did this".

[guest of Japan]

John, thanks for the memory aid. It's much easier than mine, but then again with mine I get to pretend I'm intelligent. I'll just have to use them both.

[arioch36]

I must confess, I actually don't disagree with Mr. Jones. I played the sad part of a troll, becuase I wanted to see how well-reasoned of an arguement could be produced. The right answer usually exists within me, but to actually teach it in a way the students can understand, or that I can even understand...(the half dozen or less from each class that have a desire and ability to go further.

I want to clarify that I don't agree that Andrew's use of singularity I only defend Andrews right to attempt to use singularity, my perception is that he used the wrong word, and I would say so on a student's paper.

I think jones's last argument is sophistic. You can not take the senence/clause etc. out of context. It is clear from the sentence that you want one name (the name of one student). Thiss part is not unclear. Throwing something into the fray like aliases is not what the argument is about.

And when something is unclear, you/we pick up cues from the surrounding context. We never hear all we think we hear, or see all we think we see. Our brains interprets the context and then gives us a false picture that will better help us understand our reality.. We can only understand words because of the context they are in. The orignial "the name" provides context...we want the name of one student.


The second example

[Stephen Jones]

Dear Arioch,

a) Let us try and close ths argument. First this is a teachers forum, so explanations of grammatical points are aimed at the teacher not the student. Whether the particular explanation, a simolified form of it, or no explanation at all is given to the student is of no concenr.

However the following explanation should be clearly understandable by all and sundry:

One of the students who has passed the exam.

OR

One of the studentswho have passed the exam.

This explanation is backed up by all the guides on English usage that have been consulted and there is really no need for any further discussion.


b) I don't know how you and Andrew have latched onto the idea of 'name' having any influence on the verb form in the relative clause put lke a dog chasing its tail you seem not to be able to let go.

Suppose we use 'parents' instead of 'name'. Are you saying we are forced to say

"Give me the name of one of the students who has passed the exam."

BUT

"Send me the parents of one of the students who have passed the exam?

This is of course nonsensical.

c) The truth is that in the construction one of + plural noun + who some speakers always use a singular verb and some always use a plural verb, just as some people always say "Neither of you is right on this one", and some others always say "Neither of you are right on this one".

[arioch36]

relax, I said I did NOT disagree with you, but that I did actually enjoy listening to the results of the diputes. I apologized for being a troll in this manner. I also hesitate to say, your last post was your most succinct

I hesitate to stop because the argumnets are becoming better and better.

Yes, i agree with you about THE NAME in this usage (others may not)

I will say seriously, yes I consider every word, punctuaton mark in the sentence, phrase, clause, paragrapgh, essay is used by the human mind to interpret what the person is reading. Studies have clearly shown we don't read every letter, we scan and rely on contextual tools. However this is not grammar. Just because it is not grammar does not make it unimportant. This is seen in the argument over "the name" where the inclusion of this word causes people to view the sentence and sentence structure differently


The second example :

"I want the name of the ones that did this".
Why would "the ones be correct. You want one name, the name of the organism, a "particular Organism" the oganism definite, singular. The context provides this clue

PPS Please follow the crowd and get an Avatar

[Stephen Jones]

"I want the name of the ones that did this".
Why would "the ones be correct.

Because no single individual larva, however monstrous,, would be able to get through all those EFL teachers's livers! I can give you other examples, but the simplest way is to remember that "the ones" is a pronoun replacing a plural noun.

"What's the name of those thingumijigs over there?"

"Monkey wrenches."

"And over there? What's the name of those ones over there?"