XPost: alt.usage.english

jerryfriedman wrote:

By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
notice Subject lines.

Certainly not.

I don't know how that happens,

Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something that
appears only in the subject line.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.usage.english

Bertel Lund Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

jerryfriedman wrote:

By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
notice Subject lines.

Certainly not.

I don't know how that happens,

Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something that
appears only in the subject line.

Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.

Of course, that type of incivility is part of the reason why historically
(a number of) sci.langers hold aueers (by default) in some measure of
contempt.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Tilde <[email protected]d> wrote:

Christian Weisgerber wrote:

On 2024-04-25, Ross Clark <[email protected]> wrote:

AHD (American, ca.1970) has neither -- no verb "waffle".

AHD (5th ed., 2022) is online.
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=waffle
1. To be unable to make a decision; waver
2. To speak or write evasively

I can't make M-W work on this machine; so awaiting information on its
current status in the USA,

M-W.com also lists both meanings.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waffle
waffle
2 of 3
verb
waffled; waffling ˈwä-f(ə-)liŋ ˈwȯ-
intransitive verb
1

EQUIVOCATE, VACILLATE

waffled on the important issues
also : YO-YO, FLIP-FLOP
2

To me those two would mean to have different opinions according to the time
of the day, or to how the wind blows.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.usage.english

Antonio Marques wrote:

Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.

I didn't answer Steve.

Of course, that type of incivility is part of the reason why historically
(a number of) sci.langers hold aueers (by default) in some measure of contempt.

Which kind of incivility do you mean? The change of subject?

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.usage.english

Bertel Lund Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

Antonio Marques wrote:

Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what >> 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.

I didn't answer Steve.

Nope, you just provided the appropriate tag to latch on.

Of course, that type of incivility is part of the reason why historically
(a number of) sci.langers hold aueers (by default) in some measure of
contempt.

Which kind of incivility do you mean? The change of subject?

If you lot can read Steve's original reply to Aidan in anything other than
an utterly uncalled for rude tone, there's little that can be gained from
this conversation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.usage.english

jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:

Antonio Marques wrote:

Bertel Lund Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

jerryfriedman wrote:

By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
notice Subject lines.

Certainly not.

I don't know how that happens,

Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something that
appears only in the subject line.

Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what >> 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.

The "it" there isn't idiomatic

The sentence sounded wrong to me, but even now I'm not sure why.
As to 'it', maybe it's not idiomatic, but is it ungrammatical? I don't
quite see it.

(though English has similar constructions that
do have an "it"). You could write "'dither' was quite explicitly said."
I might write something like "the meaning was explicitly 'dither'."

I could, but that would move the topic from the intended position. I can't think of a suitable alternative.

Also, "on" would be better as "about", or better still deleted, in my opinion.

That's another interesting thing. You're right that it sounds better
without a preposition. But... where did I acquire inquire on from?
The best I could come up with in a lazy search was that it exists but
doesn't seem appear in reputable sources. One page suggests inquire should
take the same or no prepositions as ask, which sounds neat but may be
wrong. Ask on doesn't certainly seem possible, unless in the unrelated keep asking meaning.

This should provide some more material for comment.

Of course, that type of incivility is part of the reason why historically
(a number of) sci.langers hold aueers (by default) in some measure of
contempt.

I have my prejudices, but holding the posters in a newsgroup in any
measure of contempt by default hasn't occurred to me.

Sometimes you get it from the group's own name, such as a lot in the alt.* hierarchy (not this one, obviously, although in early days it had its alt.quality.english vibes), sometimes from an attitude displayed all too
often, but the provisos are there, it's only a number of and only by
default and only in some measure. I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual,
albeit for different reasons.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.usage.english

jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:

Antonio Marques wrote:

jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:

Antonio Marques wrote:

Bertel Lund Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:

jerryfriedman wrote:

By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't >>>>>> notice Subject lines.

Certainly not.

I don't know how that happens,

Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something that >>>>> appears only in the subject line.

Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what >>>> 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.

The "it" there isn't idiomatic

The sentence sounded wrong to me, but even now I'm not sure why.
As to 'it', maybe it's not idiomatic, but is it ungrammatical? I don't
quite see it.

"It" refers to "dither",

No, it's an impersonal passive, and I've just found out that for the last
30/40 years I may have been using a construct that english doesn't have.

It's probably late to erase it from my grammar, never mind that I like it.
Oh, well.

so they're competing to be the subject of the
clause. If the sentence is an example of what I believe you linguists

(That's not me.)

call "right dislocation", you'd want a comma before "dither", and this
would be a very strange spot for the construction, for reasons I can't
define except that it's typically colloquial.

I won't say I've never used that one, but I agree it's much too marked.

Otherwise, we've got "pseudocleft sentences" such as "It doesn't matter
where it happened" (compare "Where it happened doesn't matter"), but
the noun phrase corresponding to the initial "It" has to be a clause
or a to+infinite phrase/clause.

(All subject to correction, notably of terminology.)

(though English has similar constructions that
do have an "it"). You could write "'dither' was quite explicitly said." >>> I might write something like "the meaning was explicitly 'dither'."

I could, but that would move the topic from the intended position. I can't >> think of a suitable alternative.

There's "In the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire what 'that' meant, it quite explicitly said 'dither'." That's somewhat informal, I'd say.

It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that construction where I expected 'mine'.

What's the antecedent of "it"? More formally, you could write
"the text said" or "Aidan said".

If the subject were shorter, you could write "The bit that Steve quoted explicitly said 'dither'." Or maybe you'd want something instead of
"said", such as "included the word". But what you actually wrote was
too long for that to be comfortable.

Which brings us to there being no proper alternative, which is odd but
doesn't look likely to interfere with my sleep.

Also, "on" would be better as "about", or better still deleted, in my
opinion.

That's another interesting thing. You're right that it sounds better
without a preposition. But... where did I acquire inquire on from?
The best I could come up with in a lazy search was that it exists but
doesn't seem appear in reputable sources. One page suggests inquire should >> take the same or no prepositions as ask, which sounds neat but may be
wrong. Ask on doesn't certainly seem possible, unless in the unrelated keep >> asking meaning.

This should provide some more material for comment.

..

In a minute of thought, I can't think of a situation where you could
replace "ask" with "inquire" but would change the preposition.

(I might have time later to return to the topic of contempt by default.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.usage.english

jerryfriedman <[email protected]> wrote:

Aidan Kehoe wrote:

Ar an ceathrú lá de mí Bealtaine, scríobh jerryfriedman:

Aidan Kehoe wrote:

Ar an chéad lá de mí Bealtaine, scríobh Antonio Marques:

Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly

inquire

on what 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said

'dither'.

The "it" there isn't idiomatic

The sentence sounded wrong to me, but even now I'm not sure

why. As

to 'it', maybe it's not idiomatic, but is it ungrammatical?

I
don't

quite see it.

"It" refers to "dither",

No, it's an impersonal passive, and I've just found out that

for the

last 30/40 years I may have been using a construct that

english

doesn't have.

English does have an impersonal passive, and and what you wrote is
grammatical, but again, not idiomatic. No one would have noticed

or

commented except that the sentence was posted to

alt.usage.english.

I disagree wth both sentences. What's an example of an impersonal

passive in

English that anyone would say? And if Antonio tries posting

sentences
like

that on the Internet as, say, Anthony Marks, I'll bet it wouldn't be

long

till someone asked him what his native language is.

https://books.google.com/books?q="it+was+said"

Now, a lot of those results are from court reports and so don’t qualify
as
“anyone would say,” but that register of English is still English.

I think "It was said that" isn't what Antonio meant by "impersonal
passive". In "It was said that", the "It" refers to the thing that was
said,

I don't think it does, just like my 'it' doesn't either:

It was said (that ...)
It was said (quote)
It is often said (that ...)
It is often said a picture is worth a thousand words

In all cases, 'it' doesn't refer to anything. It's there because the syntax requires a subject. The thing you think it refers to is the object, not the subject.

but Antonio said his "It" did not refer to "dither".

I don't object to calling "It was said that..." an impersonal passive, though, and I may have misunderstood Antonio.

Is the British Council wrong?

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/c1-grammar/advanced-passives-review#:~:text=The%20impersonal%20passive%20has%20two,from%20the%20third%20century%20BCE.

They're right, because they rule out Antonio's sentence; they say
what follows the past participle must be either a "that" clause or
an infinitive (with "to").

No, they go to the trouble of parenthesising 'that'.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)