# My General Questions \[consolidated thread for questions on English usage\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 3, 2010, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390 "2010-07-03T03:23:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/261 "2010-09-09T03:00:34Z")
please look at this English text… \*A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive right to make and sell an invention—to universities, not the government, when those patents result from government-sponsored university research. Administrators at Logos University plan to sell any patents they acquire to corporations in order to fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching \*see the RED part . Does it happen in real life ? In my opinion whenever govt sponsor any project , normally they have the right on the product invented…but here I see University can have the exclusive right to sell the product even though the project is govt sponsored. Does it happen really ? this is a very interesting fact . Do you have any examples . ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/262 "2010-09-09T04:11:04Z")
please look at this English text… \*The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught \*\*demonstrate \*\*that this resource is no longer endangered. \* this sentence is quirky…how come it is \*\*demonstrated \*\*? is it because marine fish are caught so they are not endangered ? in other words, is it because marine fish are available yet so they are not endangered ? well, if something is available yet , we can not say that they are no longer endangered…may be it could vanish within few years ! this sentence is quirky …Am I missing anything here ? ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/263 "2010-09-09T08:29:27Z")
The sentence leaves out some information that the reader is expected to infer. This really doesn’t have anything to do with the language it’s written in. I would take it to mean: _The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught_\*, using the same degree of effort, are large enough to\*\* demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered.\* ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/264 "2010-09-09T09:29:17Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > please look at this English text.. > > \*A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive right to make and sell an invention—to universities, not the government, when those patents result from government-sponsored university research. Administrators at Logos University plan to sell any patents they acquire to corporations in order to fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching > \*see the RED part . Does it happen in real life ? In my opinion whenever govt sponsor any project , normally they have the right on the product invented…but here I see University can have the exclusive right to sell the product even though the project is govt sponsored. > > Does it happen really ? this is a very interesting fact . Do you have any examples . I do. The general policy of the United States government is that anyone, whether in academia or industry, who develops an invention (“intellectual property”) while working under a government contract or grant retains the rights to that invention. The “catch” is that, although the inventor retains the rights, the government gets a royalty-free license to use the invention. [Here’s a document that explains some of the policy.](http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01980t.pdf) It says, in part, > [@](#): > > The Bayh-Dole Act > and Executive Order 12591 allow federal contractors and grantees to own—with certain restrictions—the inventions they create under federally funded research projects. > […] > > Prior to 1980, the government generally retained title to any inventions created under federal research grants and contracts, although the specific policies varied among the agencies. Over time this policy became increasingly a source of dissatisfaction. One, there was a general belief that the results of government-owned research were not being made available to those who could use them. Second, advances attributable to university-based research funded by the government were not pursued because the universities had little incentive to seek uses for inventions to which the government held title. Finally, the maze of rules and regulations and the lack of a uniform policy for government-owned inventions often frustrated those who did seek to use the research. > > The Bayh-Dole Act was intended to address these concerns by creating a uniform patent policy for inventions resulting from federally sponsored research and development agreements. The act was applicable to small businesses, universities, and other nonprofit organizations and generally gave them the right to retain title to and profit from their inventions, provided they adhered to certain requirements. The government retained nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up (royalty-free) licenses to use the inventions. > > The Bayh-Dole Act was extended to large businesses by a Presidential Memorandum issued to the executive branch agencies on February 18, 1983. It extended the patent policy of Bayh-Dole to any invention made in the performance of federally funded research and development contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements to the extent permitted by law. In 1984, the Congress amended the Bayh-Dole Act to include contractors operating government-owned laboratories. Apparently [the UK has similar regulations:](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresearch.pdf) > [@](#): > > Ownership of the IP generated in publicly funded research (which will extend to rights of confidence in information resulting from this work and to all other IP generated in the work) is to reside with the research provider, as the body best placed to secure exploitation, unless there are valid and compelling reasons to the contrary. > > When ownership of IP is placed with the research provider, arrangements must be made to secure rights to use the IP for the purchaser’s purposes, including the appropriate publication of information in accordance with the OST Guidelines on use of scientific advice in policy making. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/265 "2010-09-09T09:44:18Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > please look at this English text… > > \*The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught \*\*demonstrate \*\*that this resource is no longer endangered. \* > > this sentence is quirky…how come it is \*\*demonstrated \*\*? > > is it because marine fish are caught so they are not endangered ? > > in other words, is it because marine fish are available yet so they are not endangered ? > > well, if something is available yet , we can not say that they are no longer endangered…may be it could vanish within few years ! > > this sentence is quirky …Am I missing anything here ? No, you’ve pretty much got it. However, a nuance here is the construction “…would have the public believe that…” This is a polite way of indicating skepticism on the part of the author. For example, I could write: _“ **themajestic** says that if something is available yet, it could still vanish within few years.”_ This is a simple restatement of what you said above, and it’s neutral in tone. However, if I write: _“ **themajestic** would have us believe that if something is available yet, it could still vanish within few years.”_ then my statement is no longer neutral in tone. I’m still restating what you said, but implying skepticism of your statement. In the original quote from your post, the author is hoping you, the reader, will make the same logical deductions that you actually did. The author is implying skepticism of the commissioner’s argument, which means the author is skeptical that there is any “demonstration” of the viability of the marine fish. And he’s skeptical because, as you say, the availability–even the _increase_ in availability–of a species does not necessarily mean it’s no longer endangered. ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/266 "2010-09-09T16:28:37Z")
OK. But there is something more to this… see the detailed context… The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource. I’m getting confused how “rain forests” coming into this . …is this a analogy ? \>\>ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down ok \>\>\>demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource. why ? this is really dangerous ! …people are cutting down trees…this will be endangered very soon if cutting down with high rate. This does not look like a perfect analogy to me. Commissioner Vs Rain forest Vs endangered …now it becomes complicated. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/267 "2010-09-09T16:37:00Z")
“The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource.” The person who wrote this is making the same point I made above but by analogy rather than supplying the missing qualifying conditions. The fish example is probably demonstrated **provided** that: a) You are making the same effort - if it takes ten time the effort the argument fails. b) The increases are sufficiently large - if the increase is only 0.1% then the argument fails. Also, of course, the sample size needs to be sufficient. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/268 "2010-09-09T16:48:58Z")
What **qpw3141** said, but also realize that the author and the commissioner are on different sides. The author _wants_ you, the reader, to conclude that, since the “rainforest” argument makes no sense, then the commissioner’s argument makes no sense. The analogy here is that both arguments are dumb. ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/269 "2010-09-10T03:35:55Z")
please look at this English text… _In the country of Veltria, the past two years’ broad economic recession has included a business downturn in the clothing trade, where sales are down by about 7 percent as compared to two years ago. Clothing wholesalers have found, however, that the proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time fell sharply in the first year of the recession but returned to its prerecession level in the second year._ I’m not comfortable with this wording “p_roportion of credit extended to retailers_” . what credit ? I know credit = deposit . Example: your account has been credited with 300$ But what is this credit we are talking about here ? what is proportion of credit ? Does it trying to say Cloth wholesalers deposited money into retailer’s acoount ! which does not make sense. Could you please explain this part. ---
**Author:** ![J\_Cubed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@J\_Cubed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/J_Cubed)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/270 "2010-09-10T04:15:40Z")
The word “credit” has multiple meanings. As you said, if you credit an account, the account balance goes up and it means the account owner has more money. But when you see the word “extend” near “credit”, it’s used in the sense of “X extends a line of credit to Y”. This means that X has offered Y the opportunity to buy something (from X or someone else) now but pay for it at a later time or in installments (usually with interest). Examples are credit cards, mortgages, car loans, and, in this case, a wholesaler sending merchandise to a retailer to sell without paying first. ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/271 "2010-09-10T05:21:18Z")
> [@J\_Cubed](#): > > The word “credit” has multiple meanings. As you said, if you credit an account, the account balance goes up and it means the account owner has more money. But when you see the word “extend” near “credit”, it’s used in the sense of “X extends a line of credit to Y”. This means that X has offered Y the opportunity to buy something (from X or someone else) now but pay for it at a later time or in installments (usually with interest). Examples are credit cards, mortgages, car loans, and, in this case, a wholesaler sending merchandise to a retailer to sell without paying first. ok…but there is a word “proportion” also near to “credit” ..what does that do in this context ? ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/272 "2010-09-10T09:16:28Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > > [@J\_Cubed](#): > > > > The word “credit” has multiple meanings. As you said, if you credit an account, the account balance goes up and it means the account owner has more money. But when you see the word “extend” near “credit”, it’s used in the sense of “X extends a line of credit to Y”. This means that X has offered Y the opportunity to buy something (from X or someone else) now but pay for it at a later time or in installments (usually with interest). Examples are credit cards, mortgages, car loans, and, in this case, a wholesaler sending merchandise to a retailer to sell without paying first. > > ok…but there is a word “proportion” also near to “credit” ..what does that do in this context ? They are talking about the fraction of credit that is paid off on time. Say 100 people each borrow £10 for 6 months. If 75 people honour their obligation to pay back the debt by the due date then the **proportion** or fraction will be 75% or three quarters (3/4). ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/273 "2010-09-10T11:51:54Z")
Right. “The proportion of credit extended to retailers” is just part of the phrase, and contains only part of the meaning. The entire phrase is “the proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time.” It’s confusing because two concepts are literally mixed together: the “credit extended to retailers” and the “proportion that was paid off on time.” “The proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time” = “of credit extended to retailers, the proportion that was paid off on time.” ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/274 "2010-09-11T03:40:25Z")
I’m finding it hard still …here I’m revisiting the same… _Clothing wholesalers have found, however, that the proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time fell sharply in the first year of the recession but returned to its prerecession level in the second year._ As per my understanding after reading your comments , the summary goes like this Clothing wholesalers offered retailers to buy Cloths now but pay for it at a later time or in installments (usually with interest). In the first year of recession many retailer could NOT pay back ( _fell sharply_) wholesalers . But In the second year many retailer were able to pay back wholesalers. ok …fine . the BIG question is what magic happened in second year so that retailer could pay back ? see what the passage says … _Of the considerable number of clothing retailers in Veltria who were having fi nancial difficulties before the start of the recession, virtually all were forced to go out of business during its first year._ This is where I’m stuck. Things does not look promising. IF all of them to go out of business , how come they pay in second year ? I’m confusing at this part. ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/275 "2010-09-11T11:10:14Z")
I don’t know. My guess would be one of the following: 1. The clothing retailers that went out of business went bankrupt, and their assets were sold to pay off their creditors (including the wholesalers) as far as possible. So the wholesalers either got their money back or (more likely) had to write off some portion of the credit. In any case, from a business perspective, the credit extended to the out-of-business retailers simply does not exist any more, because the retailers themselves do not exist any more. -or- 1. Just because the credit was not “paid off on time” doesn’t mean it wasn’t paid off at all. The credit could have been paid only a week or two late, meaning virtually no credit was outstanding at the end of the year. -or- 1. The author is being unclear, and whe he says “the proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time fell sharply in the first year of the recession” he means “the proportion of credit extended to retailers in the first year of the recession that was paid off on time fell sharply.” In other words, he’s implicitly discounting the outstanding credit, and in year two only considering credit that was newly extended. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/276 "2010-09-11T11:37:34Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > I’m finding it hard still …here I’m revisiting the same.. > _Clothing wholesalers have found, however, that the proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time fell sharply in the first year of the recession but returned to its prerecession level in the second year._ > As per my understanding after reading your comments , the summary goes like this > > Clothing wholesalers offered retailers to buy Cloths now but pay for it at a later time or in installments (usually with interest). > > In the first year of recession many retailer could NOT pay back ( _fell sharply_) wholesalers . > > But In the second year many retailer were able to pay back wholesalers. > ok ..fine . the BIG question is what magic happened in second year so that retailer could pay back ? > > see what the passage says … > > _Of the considerable number of clothing retailers in Veltria who were having fi nancial difficulties before the start of the recession, virtually all were forced to go out of business during its first year._ > > This is where I’m stuck. Things does not look promising. > > IF all of them to go out of business , how come they pay in second year ? I’m confusing at this part. Your problem here doesn’t seem to be related to understanding English. It seems instead that you want to understand more of the economic background than the article is supplying. You might get more responses in a different, appropriately titled, thread. ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/277 "2010-09-11T13:07:02Z")
> [@zut](#): > > I don’t know. My guess would be one of the following: > > 1. The clothing retailers that went out of business went bankrupt, and their assets were sold to pay off their creditors (including the wholesalers) as far as possible. So the wholesalers either got their money back or (more likely) had to write off some portion of the credit. In any case, from a business perspective, the credit extended to the out-of-business retailers simply does not exist any more, because the retailers themselves do not exist any more. > > -or- > > 1. Just because the credit was not “paid off on time” doesn’t mean it wasn’t paid off at all. The credit could have been paid only a week or two late, meaning virtually no credit was outstanding at the end of the year. > > -or- > > 1. The author is being unclear, and whe he says “the proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time fell sharply in the first year of the recession” he means “the proportion of credit extended to retailers in the first year of the recession that was paid off on time fell sharply.” In other words, he’s implicitly discounting the outstanding credit, and in year two only considering credit that was newly extended. awesome input. outstanding logic . Thanks for all those possible cases . It helped me a lot. I loved it. Thanks for your time. ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/278 "2010-09-11T15:14:45Z")
Please see this English text… _Studies in restaurants show that the tips left by customers who pay their bill in cash tend to be larger when the bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo. Consumer psychologists hypothesize that simply seeing a credit-card logo makes many credit-card holders willing to spend more because it reminds them that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available._ What I understand is , say two customer , C1 and C2 C1 pays the bill by cash and tips R1 $ by cash C2 pays the bill by credit card and tips R2 $ by cash . According to argument , R2 \> R1 …i.e tips is larger when bill payment is done by Credit Card. I have little doubt in the last statement . should I read this way … …\ ***their spending power exceeds the cash** \* … OR …_ **their spending power exceeds** _ the cash This line is not clear. …every Credit Cards has purchase limit …is that same as _spending power_ here ? Also, how _cash_ is connected to _spending power exceeds_ here…_cash_ is only connected to the tips left by customer here in this context. In fact, I don’t understand the meaning “spending power exceeds the cash” ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/279 "2010-09-11T15:34:39Z")
> [@themajestic](#): > > I have little doubt in the last statement . > > should I read this way .. > > …\ ***their spending power exceeds the cash** \* … > > OR > > …_ **their spending power exceeds** _ the cash What are you intending as the difference between those? > [@](#): > > This line is not clear. …every Credit Cards has purchase limit …is that same as > _spending power_ here ? Also, how _cash_ is connected to _spending power exceeds_ here…_cash_ is only connected to the tips left by customer here in this context. If you just have £5 in cash then your spending power is £5. If you have £5 in cash and a credit card with a £1000 limit of which you have used £800, then your total spending power is £205. I have to agree that the hypothesis in the sentence you quoted doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Whilst it’s true that a customer’s total spending power is greater than the cash they have on them, what would concern them on that score, if anything, would be how much cash they would be left with after the transaction. ---
**Author:** ![themajestic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@themajestic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/themajestic)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390/280 "2010-09-11T15:58:39Z")
[quote=“qpw3141, post:279, topic:545390”] > [@themajestic](#): > > Whilst it’s true that a customer’s total spending power is greater than the cash they have on them, what would concern them on that score, if anything, would be how much cash they would be left with after the transaction. I think customer psychology they are trying to say works this way… bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo ----\> customer thinks he can spend more ( spending power more) because he has a credit card in the wallet —he pays bill by credit card --tips by cash. Now for the same customer without credit card works this way… bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo ----\> customer thinks he can NOT spend more ( spending power less ) because he does NOT have a credit card in the wallet —he pays bill by cash–tips by cash. but anyway , the mindset of customer will vary from person to person though I agree …so, this hypothesis may not be always true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-general-questions-consolidated-thread-for-questions-on-english-usage/545390.md?page=15)