prescriptivist statement or as a descriptivist one

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:36 am

There are many examples. The one that comes to mind now is the idiom for conscience' sake. According to the rules, we would put an s behind the apostrophe. Despite the apparent illogic, grammarians and linguists alike accept it as English, and no one dares change it, just as few dare change English spelling to be easier.

Easier for whom?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:41 am

There shouldn't be a difference in the functionalists mind (or whatever they have), which is why they're so eager to have animals communicate as humans and to create computer programs that can translate as perfectly as competent translators: to prove that humans are no better than living animals or dead computers.

My company spend/s a lot of money on human translators each year. If we could save on that cost by using machine translation, we would free up cash to use on other things. Your paranoid approach to IT developments is a wee bit Luddite.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:59 am

My company spend/s a lot of money on human translators each year.

Translating well requires judgment and thinking. Those who are excellent at translating understand the art. It can never be reduced to science. And computers will never think or exercise judgement. They will never take the place of a manager or a president successfully. Computers and machines can only take the place of people in situations where thinking, judgment, and decision-making doesn't play any factor — like perhaps in a factory. Translation isn't a factory job. It may suffice for some people for whom the translation isn't of great import (like a personal email), but when clarity is of the essence, computers (and unthinking people) aren't the deus ex machina. Computers can translate today: if you scratch your head and figure it out a bit in places; though the grammar isn't wonderful, you can eventually understand it (which is the sublimest criteria for functionalists). But computers don't translate professionally, fluidly, or clearly, and never will, for the satisfaction of people that think, discriminate, and appreciate quality.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:06 am

Hmm, 'for conscience' sake', if I'd ever had to write that before now, I'd've probably added an 's', and I would not have considered it wrong.

No you wouldn't have. You would have left out the apostrophe, which is how most people err. But more importantly, you wouldn't have said it orally "for conscience's sake" — just like you wouldn't ever say "for goodness's sake," (and not written it this way either).

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:16 am

What is of primary interest to me is WHAT is to be learnt, and that will soon lead into a consideration of how it will be(come) learnt

But I think you missed the point of Sayers' essay. She isn't unconcerned about what is to be learned, and doesn't disagree that it is important. That is all part of the quadrivium. She doesn't criticize this concern at all. What she criticizes is that modern education concerns itself only with this concern and that the trivium is almost wholly missing.
As to your criticism that Russian has a weak grammar, she wasn't saying that to talk about Russian per se, but to note that Latin is a stronger model of desirable grammar. I found this link in:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/whys ... ylatin.htm

Makes You More Careful in English
In Latin you have more to worry about than whether a plural pronoun refers to a singular noun (as in the politically correct - grammatically incorrect: each student has their own workbook). In Latin there are seven cases with which not only pronouns, but adjectives -- not to mention verbs -- must agree. Learning such rules makes the student careful in English.
But more important is the fact that traditional study of Latin starts out with a grammatical framework.... As American students begin Latin, they become acquainted with the "Latin grammar" system, which they can indirectly transfer to their work in English. What it gives them is a standardized set of terms in which to describe words in relations to other words in sentences, and it is this grammatical awareness which makes their English writing good.
William Harris

Increased Accuracy
This may be due to the increased accuracy Professor Emeritus William Harris notes:
From another point of view, the study of Latin does foster precision in the use of words. Since one reads Latin closely and carefully, often word by word, this focuses the student's mind on individual words and their usage. It has been noticed that people who have studied Latin in school usually write quite good English prose. There may be a certain amount of stylistic imitation involved, but more important is the habit of reading closely and following important texts with accuracy.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:01 am

Translating well requires judgment and thinking. Those who are excellent at translating understand the art. It can never be reduced to science.

I think that depends on what needs translating. I use tranlsation software to give a general translation and then I adjust here and there. And, for sure, translation software has got better and better over the years.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:04 am

But more importantly, you wouldn't have said it orally "for conscience's sake"---just like you wouldn't ever say "for goodness's sake," (and not written it this way either).

Are you saying that it is correct to say "for conscience's sake"?

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:02 am

No, I didn't imply that (thanks for your earlier correction concerning imply and infer). I meant the oral utterance was a more important deciding factor than the written in determining whether using the plural form is a common error in English, which I didn't think it was.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:02 pm

I meant the oral utterance was a more important deciding factor than the written in determining whether using the plural form is a common error in English, which I didn't think it was.

Maybe the spoken form came first. Old habits...

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:53 am

English spelling isn't "illogical", it's just that its spelling doesn't always reflect pronunciation of a word, but rather its history/etymology.

I didn't say spelling was illogical; I just mentioned that traditional spelling wouldn't be changed willingly just as illogical idioms or usages wouldn't be changed willingly. I suppose if spelling were to be changed, it would be for reasons of ease, rather than logic.
I think I gave a wrong example earlier of illogic concerning conscience' sake. It's just a punctuation irregularity. Bryan Garner lists illogic examples that are set idioms that shouldn't be fretted over, for example, why do fat chance and slim chance mean the same thing? Or burn up and burn down? They may seem illogical, but firmly established. Or I don't think is sometimes considered illogical, because we do think, says Garner. It's logically said I think not, but it's firmly entrenched in English.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:40 am

Bryan Garner lists illogic examples that are set idioms that shouldn't be fretted over, for example, why do fat chance and slim chance mean the same thing? Or burn up and burn down?

I agree with him; don't fret. Would you fret about this?

Hi! How's things?

Or I don't think is sometimes considered illogical, because we do think, says Garner. It's logically said I think not, but it's firmly entrenched in English.

To me, it's logical. "I don't think this that I am about to mention...". Similar to "I am not of the mind (that thinks...)"

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:11 pm

jotham wrote:
Hmm, 'for conscience' sake', if I'd ever had to write that before now, I'd've probably added an 's', and I would not have considered it wrong.
No you wouldn't have. You would have left out the apostrophe, which is how most people err. But more importantly, you wouldn't have said it orally "for conscience's sake"---just like you wouldn't ever say "for goodness's sake," (and not written it this way either).

I was more thinking along the lines of 'Whose conscience? Your conscience? Then it would make sense to put in not only an apostrophe, but an s too'. I actually was not at all famliar with the "standard" (general)phrase (and a look at what's Googleable shows that not everyone else is always too sure, either).

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:30 am

To me, it's logical. "I don't think this that I am about to mention...". Similar to "I am not of the mind (that thinks...)"

According to Garner, some people claim it is illogical, though well-accepted:

After all, you do think; you simply think something negative.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:10 am

Some earlier discussion regarding "not thinking":
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?t=2181

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:14 am

According to Garner, some people claim it is illogical, though well-accepted:

I'm not among those people.