DanielWithrow, you are an embarrassement to English speaking people

[Fin_man]

First, some background for those joining the show already in progress. We began our "tiff" in the Pit with this thread - Who would shoot a dog? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=174139)
Since we had a difference of opinion on what certain words meant, I started a thread in IMHO called Is it my insulated world or his insulated world? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=174469)

In the IMHO thread, I asked:

Originally posted by Fin_man
Please tell me what comes to mind when you read or what is the meaning of the following:

1 - Stray Dog
2 - Event X may have occurred
3 - There is a good chance Event X occurred

and you wrote:

Originally posted by DanielWithrow

The argument, of course, is threefold:
1) When parsing sentences, must one take context into consideration?
2) When a word or phrase in a sentence may be defined in more than one way, should one choose the definition that renders the sentence reasonable or unreasonable?
3) When one believes that an opponent in a debate has misused a word, should one build one's counter-argument around the perceived misuse of the word, or should one confront the underlying argument?


1) To that I must say you are the biggest fucking idiot I have seen in a good while. Yes, when parsing sentences, one must take context into consideration. However, fucknut, how can stray dog be taken out of context? As seen in the IMHO thread, even in your "context" stray dog means an ownerless dog to those not in the animal control business. If you want to talk about a dog on the loose, say loose dog.

2) And why should I assume that the garbage that comes out of your mind is reasonable? Do you think that when you use a phrase like good chance we should think "Hmm, to me (and the rest of the logical, intelligent world) this means a high probability or most likely. But in this sentence, using "high probability" or "most likely" would be unreasonable. The author MUST have meant it as "may" even though NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT FUCKING MIND WOULD EVER USE "GOOD CHANCE" WHEN THEY MEAN "MAY". But "may" is reasonable, so I should read it as "may". No, asshat, if you mean X, say X. Don't say Y and expect us to assume you meant X.

3) Our debate revolved around 3 items:
---a) Your comparison of books to dogs - which I still don't understand.
---b) Your use of "stray dog" to mean "loose dog" - which from the opinion of posters in the IMHO thread, you are wrong.
---c) Your use of "good chance" to mean "may" - which from the opinion of posters in the IMHO thread AND BASIC ENGLISH DICTION is 100 per-fucking-cent WRONG
Your underlying argument stated that there was a good chance a crime was committed. Neither of us was present when the shooting occurred so I could only confront your argument with the facts presented in the OP. From those facts, your argument was wrong SOLELY BASED ON YOUR POOR CHOICE OF WORDS.


So, DaneilWithrow, you are a pus-brained, shit-spouting idiot.

[gobear]

Daniel Withrow is an intelligent poster with a clear, concise writng style. You, OTOH, are a fucknut. That said, I give this thread an 85--it has a good beat and it's easy to dance to.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

W00t! First pitting!

First, your bizarre need to start two additional threads over this matter is incomprehensible to me.

Second, your little IMHO survey once again betrays your inability to understand the importance of context in understanding language.

Third, you insist on (for "stray") dismissing dictionary definitions and professional definitions, because to admit these definitions would mean admitting you were wrong to get all snarkybutt on me. Frankly, if most people here don't understand the advantages of the ambiguity behind the word "stray", then that's an opportunity for educating them, not proof that you're correct.

Fourth, I conceded the point about "a good chance", although I do not think it needs conceding: as one of your own cites shows, in a case in which farm women stand a significantly greater chance of getting cancer than non-farm women, but they do not suffer a greater than 50% chance of getting cancer, it is reasonable to use the phrase "a good chance" to describe their chances of getting cancer. Language is malleable, words mean different things in different contexts, and my meaning in this context was made abundantly clear by everything else I'd said in the thread.

Fifth, when you say that our debate revolved around three items, you're incorrect. The debate was over whether it was acceptable to shoot a stray (yes, stray -- not loose, for reasons I'll detail below) dog when she comes running up to you. At least, that was the debate until you shrilly hijacked it to demonstrate the need for more reading comprehension classes in our nation's elementary schools. Amd despite my attempts, I could not get you to shake the hijack free and debate the actual point of the thread.

Finally: "stray" has two relevant definitions. It can either mean "out of its proper place," or it can mean, "unwanted." Clearly, in my sentence, I was using the first definition; such a definition refers to owned loose dogs. You want only the second definition to apply, in which case I would have been inexplicably referring to feral dogs.

But the ambiguity is actually very useful. When a dog comes running up to you in the woods, absent a collar or other evidence, you do not know whether the dog is loose (i.e., owned) or feral (i.e., unowned). All you know is that the dog is not properly controlled by an owner. If I and the dictionary and animal control parlance are correct, then the word "stray" may always be properly applied in this circumstance: only later will you learn whether definition 1 or 2 applied. If you're correct, however, you will not have the language to describe the incident until you learn whether the animal is owned.

If you want to refer to an unowned dog, the word "feral" is perfectly appropriate. You may also, of course, use the word "stray," but if you do, you should recognize that folks will not know from your word usage whether the dog is owned.

Daniel

PS In hindsight, I realize that, while you were deliberately misreading me and baiting me in the other pit thread, I probably could have defused the situation by not responding with anger and sarcasm. To the extent that I exacerbated the situation, I apologize.

And on preview, thanks, gobear!

[Fin_man]

After reading your last post, I think there has been a miscommunication on both our parts. I will try and clear things up.

The "advantage" of the ambiguity of words is, in my opinion, a disadvantage. In your original "stray" post, I don't believe you clearly stated that "stray" meant "loose". When (or if) I post/speak in the future, I personally will use "loose" or "feral" unless the sentence is "that dog strayed from his home" or "that stray dog has been living on the streets for year". As you stated, use of stray is ambiguous.

My debate with you was not about the acceptability of shooting animals. I concede that I might not have been clear but I believe the killing of dogs is wrong unless you feel your safety, or the safety of those around you, is in danger. Given my experience with dogs is minimal, my threat level threshold is probably low - and that I will fiercely defend my daughter's life to the death, I would tend to lean towards self-defense. My knee-jerk reaction was to my interpretation of your post to the automatic assumption that a crime occurred. And my anger got raised by your anger and sarcasm, and to that, I apologize.

So, truce?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Fin_man
The "advantage" of the ambiguity of words is, in my opinion, a disadvantage. In your original "stray" post, I don't believe you clearly stated that "stray" meant "loose". When (or if) I post/speak in the future, I personally will use "loose" or "feral" unless the sentence is "that dog strayed from his home" or "that stray dog has been living on the streets for year". As you stated, use of stray is ambiguous.

Again, let's look at the context. I was discussing an appropriate response to being approached by a potentially dangerous stray animal. Generally, when folks are approached by potentially dangerous animals, they don't know whether the animal is loose or feral, and so they can't take that into consideration; all they can consider is that the animal isn't under an owner's control. That's why we need the vagueness of the word "stray": because, as that sentence demonstrated, there are times when we cannot consider the ownership status of an animal when determining our course of action.

My debate with you was not about the acceptability of shooting animals. I concede that I might not have been clear but I believe the killing of dogs is wrong unless you feel your safety, or the safety of those around you, is in danger. Given my experience with dogs is minimal, my threat level threshold is probably low - and that I will fiercely defend my daughter's life to the death, I would tend to lean towards self-defense. My knee-jerk reaction was to my interpretation of your post to the automatic assumption that a crime occurred. And my anger got raised by your anger and sarcasm, and to that, I apologize.

So, truce?

Truce, gladly. I will ask that in the future, if my posts are unclear to you, rather than interpret them in the worst possible light, you try to figure out what I was trying to say -- and if it's completely unclear, ask me, rather than mocking me for making an obviously absurd claim.

Daniel

[auntie em]

A truce already? Damn, what is the pit coming to these days??? I didn't even get a chance to take sides. ;)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Sorry, auntie.

If it helps, I'll break the truce just long enough to point out that when you pit someone for their poor use of the language, it behooves you not to misspell a word in the thread's title. :)

Daniel

[auntie em]

. . . but Daniel, isn't it a law of some sort around here that this should happen? ;)

[Fin_man]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
Sorry, auntie.

If it helps, I'll break the truce just long enough to point out that when you pit someone for their poor use of the language, it behooves you not to misspell a word in the thread's title. :)

Daniel

Serenity now. Serenity now! :smack:

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by auntie em
. . . but Daniel, isn't it a law of some sort around here that this should happen? ;)

Don't ask me. Ask Gudere.

Daniel
invoking the law in its purest form

[London_Calling]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
If it helps, I'll break the truce just long enough to point out that when you pit someone for their poor use of the language, it behooves you not to misspell a word in the thread's title. :)

It's spelt 'behoves' where I come from but as the origin is probably German, I can hardly engage in schadenfreude at your expense ...

[gobear]

It's spelt 'behoves' where I come from but as the origin is probably German, I can hardly engage in schadenfreude at your expense

In which dictionary? M-W.com says "behove" is a mere British variant of the preferred spelling, "behoove": maybe it's the one that lists "spelt" as the past tense of "spell" instead of "spelled." Where I come from, "spelt" is a variety of grain.

[London_Calling]

Well, to hand, all I have is a Collins 21st Century Edition ..... which says (on your point) 'Old English behofian, related to Middle Low German behoven.

The entries for beholden and behoof both claim the same German root, perhaps unsurprisingly.


Also, Collins has, spelt a past tense and past particle of spell

- I don't have an OED to hand, sorry. I’m sure, however, one is winging its way in our direction .....

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by London_Calling
It's spelt 'behoves' where I come from but as the origin is probably German, I can hardly engage in schadenfreude at your expense ...

I agree, especially since, where I come from, that's a run-on sentence.

Daniel
whose first rule of grammar/spelling correction is this: never strike the first blow. The second rule is this: make sure you're correcting a mistake, not simply listing a variant.

[Enderw24]

I'm pretty sure the SMDB is the only place on the internet to contain a thread that Strunk and White shake their heads at and exclaim "these people are too anal."

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Heh. On the contrary, Ender -- I used to hang out on a board in which people had bitter, vituperative flame wars over whether "John's" in the sentence "John's mother is coming to visit" is an adjective or a noun.

Great fun!
Daniel

(if you're interested, the argument against "John's" being an adjective, IIRC, is that in the sentence, "John's mother's friend is coming to visit," "John's" would magically become an adverb, since it would be modifying an adjective. I don't remember the rest of that particular angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument.)

[Tansu]

Originally posted by London_Calling
It's spelt 'behoves' where I come from Originally posted by gobear
In which dictionary? M-W.com says "behove" is a mere British variant of the preferred spelling, "behoove"(italics mine)

And where does London_Calling come from?

Hint: there's a clue in the username...;)

[Homebrew]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
Don't ask me. Ask Gudere.

Daniel
invoking the law in its purest form

*SNICKER*

Intentional or not, that was funny.

[Muffin]

Ironically, I am presently reviewing the fines and short form wordings of the charges for a dog-at-large bylaw.

[pravnik]

Originally posted by gobear
That said, I give this thread an 85--it has a good beat and it's easy to dance to.

That high? Just trying to figure out what the argument was over was like reading freakin' Wittgenstein! :D

[kaylasdad99]

Originally posted by Tansu
And where does London_Calling come from?
I'm not positive, but I think it's from a song by some group.

I've also read in Cafe Society threads that it's based on a television commercial for autombiles bearing the Jaguar brand.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
(if you're interested, the argument against "John's" being an adjective, IIRC, is that in the sentence, "John's mother's friend is coming to visit," "John's" would magically become an adverb, since it would be modifying an adjective. I don't remember the rest of that particular angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument.)

That's a bullshit argument if I've ever seen one. "Red is his name" Red is a noun. "Red's ball" Red is an adjective. An adjective, by definition, is in place to modify (explain something about) a noun. That John is a proper noun regardless of context does nothing to invalidate the fact that its function in the sentence is as an adjective, however many capital letters you wish to insert in it. "John's mother is going to the ball" has John as the adjective. "John's mother's friend", to me, puts "'s mother" in with "John" as the adjective. Whose friend? John's mother's.

Duuuuuhr;)

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Given that this thread has run its course, I feel no compunction about hijacking it into an even more meaningless grammar discussion.

Note that I don't remember the entire argument, but I do remember at the time being convinced that "John's" was a noun in the sentence, and couldn't even properly be described as a noun functioning as an adjective.

After all, if you posit that possessive nouns are acting as adjectives, then you can turn any adjective in the language into an adverb by the simple expedient of using it to modify a possessive noun.

To use your example, is "red" an adverb? Clearly not. But in the sentence, "The red lightsabre's force is eeeeevil," red is clearly modifying the possessive noun lightsabre's. If lightsabre's is an adjective, then red is modifying an adjective. And only adverbs can modify adjectives.

I left the discussion unsettled and confused. Although possessive nouns appear to act as adjectives, they are not functionally equivalent. I believe the answer is to view the possessive as a case of a noun, similar to the subjective and objective cases (some language, like Latin, have six and a half cases for each noun). It's still a noun, but its function in the sentence is somewhat different from the function of the more common subjective and objective nouns.

Daniel

[gobear]

Originally posted by Tansu
(italics mine)

And where does London_Calling come from?

Hint: there's a clue in the username...;)
Ah, but you missed the point that it's a variant, not the preferred spelling, which is the same in the UK and the US, not to mention Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

[Nametag]

I left the discussion unsettled and confused. Although possessive nouns appear to act as adjectives, they are not functionally equivalent. I believe the answer is to view the possessive as a case of a noun, similar to the subjective and objective cases (some language, like Latin, have six and a half cases for each noun). It's still a noun, but its function in the sentence is somewhat different from the function of the more common subjective and objective nouns.Daniel, this certainly has its adherents. The most, ah, passionate grammarian I know has made this point frequently, at great length, and with great heat.

Have you ever seen/read/subscribed to The Vocabula Review?

[iampunha]

The thing is this, though. A word can have more than one function in a sentence. "John's mother has a ball", for example. John is both a noun (we are told of the existence of some person John) and an adjective (whose mother? John's). So too can a word be both an adjective and an adverb.

I would not diagram a sentence with more than one of those such things if you put a gun to my head:D

[j_kat_251]

Is he from Callingville?

Aren't loose dogs just easy, rather than running rampant?

[Tansu]

gobear, the preferred spelling is not the same in the UK and the US. The Oxford English Dictionary has "behove" as the preferred spelling in the UK, with "behoove" as the US spelling (I only have the Concise Oxford on my desk, that's what I used to check). So L_C's statement that "It's spelt 'behoves' where I come from" is reasonable. Because I used a paper dictionary to look up the word, I can't give you a direct cite (the full OED is available online, but only by subscription, and it ain't cheap). I did find this http://www.bartleby.com/68/85/785.html though, which I hope is OK.

I know this is a terribly tiny nit to pick, but I didn't miss your point - rather, I disagreed with it. Anyway, there it is.

[London_Calling]

I only wanted a bit of fun, and they all got serious on me ....

Thank you, the delicious

< drum roll >

Tansu !! …

< bow >>

< L_C throws flowers from the cheap seats >

< curtain closes >

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by iampunha
The thing is this, though. A word can have more than one function in a sentence. "John's mother has a ball", for example. John is both a noun (we are told of the existence of some person John) and an adjective (whose mother? John's). So too can a word be both an adjective and an adverb.


Interesting. In looking around various Web sites yesterday, it looks as if this question is far from settled amongst grammar geeks. It's easier for me to understand if I just say that we're dealing with the genitive case of a noun, rather than positing some Schrodinger's Word that is simultaneous noun and adjective, or adjective and adverb. But I'm not sufficiently up on my grammarian geekitude that I can argue the point intelligently.

Daniel