| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1139.1 | Gleaned from the NSOED | BIRMVX::HILLN | It's OK, it'll be dark by nightfall | Fri May 05 1995 05:29 | 8 |
| If there 'is an alternative' then you have a case of one or the other -
i.e. there are a total of two.
If there 'are two alternatives' then there is the original entity plus
two options - i.e. a total of three.
If there 'are alternatives' then there are an indeterminant number of
entities.
|
| 1139.2 | | STKAI1::T_ANDERSSON | O tempora, o mores... | Fri May 05 1995 06:02 | 14 |
| .1:
> If there 'are two alternatives' then there is the original entity plus
> two options - i.e. a total of three.
Yes, but the original option is an alternative to the other two
possibilities, so you might hear (in case of two possibilities):
... discussion about original option ...
"Yes, but there are actually two alternatives: A and B."
In this case, A is an alternative to B, and B is an alternative
to A. Is this incorrect? I don't think it should be.
|
| 1139.3 | As if I expected the last sentence to reflect reality... | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Fri May 05 1995 06:48 | 7 |
| The ambiguity presented in .0 is real and should be dealt with by the
context in which the word is used.
"There are two alternatives" can mean either that there are two choices
alternative to an already-stated proposition or that there are in total
two alternative choices. (Videte Fowler, 2d ed., p. 20.) Hence, it is
incumbent on the speaker to make clear which is his intention.
|
| 1139.4 | | JRDV04::DIAMOND | segmentation fault (california dumped) | Sun May 07 1995 20:26 | 13 |
| There are two alternatives for the meaning of "There are two
alternatives."
There are two alternatives for the meaning of "There are two
alternatives for the meaning of 'There are two alternatives.'"
There are not four alternatives for the meaning of "There are
two alternatives for the meaning of 'There are two alternatives'"
because "There are two alternatives for the meaning of 'There are
two alternatives'" means that "There are two alternatives" means
either that there are two options or that there are three options
whether or not these meanings are correct.
(Don't ask how many times did immigrants alter natives.)
|
| 1139.5 | Aha | FORTY2::KNOWLES | Per ardua ad nauseam | Mon May 22 1995 05:50 | 13 |
| This isn't something I've lost much sleep over, but Dick (and Fowler)
have helped me see a light (which I hope isn't illusory): the
ambiguity is between `There are two alternatives [A and B]' and
`There are two alternatives [B and C][to A]'. In the latter case
either A and B or A and C are the alternative pairings.
This would explain the Miss Thistlebotham argument that an alternative
must be one of two `because of the Latin�', which always reminded me
of the between/among argument - accurate but not something to go to the
wall for.
b
� Ask Mr B - I'd be bound to get it wrong.
|
| 1139.6 | | SMURF::BINDER | Father, Son, and Holy Spigot | Mon May 22 1995 07:46 | 12 |
| Re .5
"Because of the Latin" is not a supportable argument, however, Bob.
I contend that dictating grammatical rules for English (generically,
any given language) based on Latin (generically, any OTHER language) is
a ridiculously misguided practice that was foisted on us by our
classically educated forbears. I support this contention by citing the
prohibition against splitting infinitives. Modus infinitiuus Latinus
fissus nequet esse ob uerbum unum est; uidede "esse." (A Latin
infinitive cannot be split because it is a single word; see "esse/to
be.")
|
| 1139.7 | Ita vero | FORTY2::KNOWLES | Per ardua ad nauseam | Fri Jun 02 1995 05:12 | 3 |
| Right. It's not a supportable argument, and I don't support it.
b
|
| 1139.8 | Why foistest (foisteth?) thou that upon us? | wook.mso.dec.com::mold.ogo.dec.com::lee | Wook like book with a W | Sun Sep 17 1995 23:09 | 4 |
| I recently heard that the true reason for the foisting had more to do with
establishing class distinctions than any genuine attempt to educate.
Wook
|
| 1139.9 | A convenient class-marker, donchaknow... Plausible! | DRDAN::KALIKOW | DIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName&Glory! | Mon Sep 18 1995 02:43 | 1 |
| ... and dat ain't the foist time I hoid that.
|
| 1139.10 | Pot, Kettle, Black :-) | wook.mso.dec.com::mold.ogo.dec.com::lee | Wook like book with a W | Mon Sep 18 1995 22:08 | 10 |
| "... and dat ain't the foist time I hoid that?"
^^^ ^^^^
tsck, tsck... Dr. Dan, you're slipping.
... and HE says I'M out of practice....
^L^
U
Wook (It's good to be back.)
|
| 1139.11 | Can I get away by taking refuge in Walt Whitman? | DRDAN::KALIKOW | DIGITAL=DEC: ReClaim TheName&Glory! | Tue Sep 19 1995 02:29 | 3 |
| So NU, I contain multitudes, boychick. You gots a problem wiv dat,
Paisan? Bugger off then, and be damned to thee.
|
| 1139.12 | Bill Rattlepike Refuge, or is it Rattlesfruit | 16.124.224.10::LEE | | Tue Sep 19 1995 12:08 | 11 |
| Boychick? Paisan? If thou seekest refuge, get thee to a nunnery I say!
Didn't think anyone took refuge in Whitman anymore. How about Shakespeare?
Or should we say Shakspear or Shakespeer or the other ways he spelt it, none of
which were Shakespeare?
Notice how I neatly bring the discussion back to the topic of alternative
ambiguity?
Wook
|
| 1139.13 | | SMURF::BINDER | Night's candles are burnt out. | Wed Sep 20 1995 06:04 | 4 |
| Re .12
... none of which WAS Shakespeare?
^^^
|
| 1139.14 | mea culpa | wook.mso.dec.com::LEE | | Wed Sep 20 1995 12:05 | 1 |
| It were late. :-)
|