Discussion:
"But" avoidance
(too old to reply)
Quinn C
2018-07-10 16:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
"kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...

Anyway, he said something along the lines of:

Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.

I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
"also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.

--
- It's the title search for the Rachel property.
Guess who owns it?
- Tell me it's not that bastard Donald Trump.
-- Gilmore Girls, S02E08 (2001)
Cheryl
2018-07-10 16:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-10 2:06 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
> "kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
> famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
>
> Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
>
> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
>
> I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
> odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
> many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
> "also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
>
I don't see it as misleading. It's just a variation in the way the idea
is expressed. Possibly, it puts slightly more emphasis on the final
option than would be there with a "but", but if there is a difference in
nuance, it is minimal.

--
Cheryl
Quinn C
2018-07-11 17:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
* Cheryl:

> On 2018-07-10 2:06 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>> Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
>> "kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
>> famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
>>
>> Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
>>
>> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
>>
>> I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
>> odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
>> many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
>> "also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
>>
> I don't see it as misleading. It's just a variation in the way the idea
> is expressed. Possibly, it puts slightly more emphasis on the final
> option than would be there with a "but", but if there is a difference in
> nuance, it is minimal.

For me, it feels similar to "thanks to Microsoft, I lost another two
hours". That is an ironic inversion, but so common that it passes
almost unnoticed. The "also" in the above still stands out to me. I'm
also not sure it's meant as ironic, sarcastic or the like. I suspect
it's mostly avoiding "but".

I have no issue with "while crude and simplified, it's still useful."

--
Some things are taken away from you, some you leave behind-and
some you carry with you, world without end.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.31
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-10 21:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 12:36:44 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
> "kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
> famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
>
> Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
>
> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
>
> I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
> odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
> many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
> "also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.

Could you be being bothered by the absence of an aber/sondern distinction?

As Cheryl says, it doesn't seem odd at all. Or even Canadian.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-11 08:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-10 21:49:30 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:

> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 12:36:44 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>
>> Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
>> "kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
>> famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
>>
>> Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
>>
>> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
>>
>> I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
>> odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
>> many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
>> "also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
>
> Could you be being bothered by the absence of an aber/sondern distinction?
>
> As Cheryl says, it doesn't seem odd at all. Or even Canadian.

I don't seem to have Cheryl's post, but no matter, I agree. Nothing odd
about it.


--
athel
Jack
2018-07-11 06:18:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:36:41 -0400, Quinn C
<***@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
>"kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
>famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
>
>Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
>
> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
>
>I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
>odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
>many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
>"also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.

I don't find it misleading. The author is asserting the aptness of all
three epithets; the first two are concessions, and the third gets its
contrast from the meanings of the words and by being in a separate
sentence. It's a rhetorical device.

--
John
Quinn C
2018-07-11 17:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
* Jack:

> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:36:41 -0400, Quinn C
> <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
>>"kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
>>famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
>>
>>Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
>>
>> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
>>
>>I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
>>odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
>>many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
>>"also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
>
> I don't find it misleading. The author is asserting the aptness of all
> three epithets; the first two are concessions, and the third gets its
> contrast from the meanings of the words and by being in a separate
> sentence. It's a rhetorical device.

If you say it's a rhetorical device, you seem to at least partially
agree with me. It's not just a straightforward use of those words, as
in:

This car is clean and shiny. It's also rather new.
This car looks battered and rusty. But it's actually rather new.

Compare:

This car looks battered and rusty. It's also rather new.

Does it work in this case?

--
Pentiums melt in your PC, not in your hand.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-11 17:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 18:37:34 UTC+1, Quinn C wrote:
> * Jack:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:36:41 -0400, Quinn C
> > <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
> >
> >>Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
> >>"kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
> >>famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
> >>
> >>Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
> >>
> >> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
> >>
> >>I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
> >>odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
> >>many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
> >>"also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
> >
> > I don't find it misleading. The author is asserting the aptness of all
> > three epithets; the first two are concessions, and the third gets its
> > contrast from the meanings of the words and by being in a separate
> > sentence. It's a rhetorical device.
>
> If you say it's a rhetorical device, you seem to at least partially
> agree with me. It's not just a straightforward use of those words, as
> in:
>
> This car is clean and shiny. It's also rather new.
> This car looks battered and rusty. But it's actually rather new.
>
> Compare:
>
> This car looks battered and rusty. It's also rather new.
>
> Does it work in this case?
>

It doesn't have to work in that case. It only has to work in
the stated case and, for me, it does.
Quinn C
2018-07-11 18:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
* Madrigal Gurneyhalt:

> On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 18:37:34 UTC+1, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Jack:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:36:41 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
>>>>"kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
>>>>famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
>>>>
>>>>I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
>>>>odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
>>>>many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
>>>>"also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
>>>
>>> I don't find it misleading. The author is asserting the aptness of all
>>> three epithets; the first two are concessions, and the third gets its
>>> contrast from the meanings of the words and by being in a separate
>>> sentence. It's a rhetorical device.
>>
>> If you say it's a rhetorical device, you seem to at least partially
>> agree with me. It's not just a straightforward use of those words, as
>> in:
>>
>> This car is clean and shiny. It's also rather new.
>> This car looks battered and rusty. But it's actually rather new.
>>
>> Compare:
>>
>> This car looks battered and rusty. It's also rather new.
>>
>> Does it work in this case?
>>
>
> It doesn't have to work in that case. It only has to work in
> the stated case and, for me, it does.

One also doesn't have to answer in a hostile manner to an open question
from someone trying to understand.

I'm not here to teach better English to the natives. It seems that this
usage of "also" is generally ok with native speakers, whereas it's not
for me with the straightforward German translation "auch". I'm trying
to figure out if there's a better translation, either generally, or in
certain cases, e.g. "außerdem" (which I usually connect more with
"besides" or "moreover".)

--
... their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. -- M.A. Hardaker in Popular Science (1881)
CDB
2018-07-11 20:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/11/2018 2:39 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Madrigal Gurneyhalt:
>> Quinn C wrote:
>>> * Jack:
>>>> Quinn C <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>>>>> Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's
>>>>> corporate "kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make
>>>>> sure to invite famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be
>>>>> working in the US ...

>>>>> Anyway, he said something along the lines of:

>>>>> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also
>>>>> useful.

>>>>> I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes
>>>>> me as odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself
>>>>> bothered by too many "but"s even in my own writing, but this
>>>>> is a place where I find "also" misleading. There must be
>>>>> other alternatives.

>>>> I don't find it misleading. The author is asserting the aptness
>>>> of all three epithets; the first two are concessions, and the
>>>> third gets its contrast from the meanings of the words and by
>>>> being in a separate sentence. It's a rhetorical device.

>>> If you say it's a rhetorical device, you seem to at least
>>> partially agree with me. It's not just a straightforward use of
>>> those words, as in:

>>> This car is clean and shiny. It's also rather new. This car looks
>>> battered and rusty. But it's actually rather new.

>>> Compare:

>>> This car looks battered and rusty. It's also rather new.

>>> Does it work in this case?

It does for me, FWIW. The period indicates a full stop -- maybe a bit
longer than the usual interval between sentences -- and that is enough
to permit a contrasting statement to follow.

This talk of timing makes me think it might be a form used more in
speech than in writing.

>> It doesn't have to work in that case. It only has to work in the
>> stated case and, for me, it does.

> One also doesn't have to answer in a hostile manner to an open
> question from someone trying to understand.

> I'm not here to teach better English to the natives. It seems that
> this usage of "also" is generally ok with native speakers, whereas
> it's not for me with the straightforward German translation "auch".
> I'm trying to figure out if there's a better translation, either
> generally, or in certain cases, e.g. "außerdem" (which I usually
> connect more with "besides" or "moreover".)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-11 21:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 19:39:22 UTC+1, Quinn C wrote:
> * Madrigal Gurneyhalt:
>
> > On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 18:37:34 UTC+1, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Jack:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:36:41 -0400, Quinn C
> >>> <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
> >>>>"kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
> >>>>famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
> >>>>
> >>>>Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
> >>>>
> >>>>I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
> >>>>odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
> >>>>many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
> >>>>"also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
> >>>
> >>> I don't find it misleading. The author is asserting the aptness of all
> >>> three epithets; the first two are concessions, and the third gets its
> >>> contrast from the meanings of the words and by being in a separate
> >>> sentence. It's a rhetorical device.
> >>
> >> If you say it's a rhetorical device, you seem to at least partially
> >> agree with me. It's not just a straightforward use of those words, as
> >> in:
> >>
> >> This car is clean and shiny. It's also rather new.
> >> This car looks battered and rusty. But it's actually rather new.
> >>
> >> Compare:
> >>
> >> This car looks battered and rusty. It's also rather new.
> >>
> >> Does it work in this case?
> >>
> >
> > It doesn't have to work in that case. It only has to work in
> > the stated case and, for me, it does.
>
> One also doesn't have to answer in a hostile manner to an open question
> from someone trying to understand.

You think that's hostile? Geez.
>
Richard Yates
2018-07-11 18:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:37:32 -0400, Quinn C
<***@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Jack:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:36:41 -0400, Quinn C
>> <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
>>>"kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
>>>famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
>>>
>>>Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
>>>
>>> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
>>>
>>>I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
>>>odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
>>>many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
>>>"also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
>>
>> I don't find it misleading. The author is asserting the aptness of all
>> three epithets; the first two are concessions, and the third gets its
>> contrast from the meanings of the words and by being in a separate
>> sentence. It's a rhetorical device.
>
>If you say it's a rhetorical device, you seem to at least partially
>agree with me. It's not just a straightforward use of those words, as
>in:
>
> This car is clean and shiny. It's also rather new.
> This car looks battered and rusty. But it's actually rather new.
>
>Compare:
>
> This car looks battered and rusty. It's also rather new.
>
>Does it work in this case?

Sure. The essential meaning of both constructions is identical. They
both assert two facts. The "but" form emphasizes the contrast between
them; The "also" also form emphasizes that they are equally true.

In most cases it is clear from the context and subject matter how much
contrast or similarity there is. New cars are not usually battered and
rusty, and readers know this so either form works.

In some contexts it might not be known that there is a contrast or
apparent contradiction and so "but" might be preferred.
Jack
2018-07-12 16:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:37:32 -0400, Quinn C
<***@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Jack:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:36:41 -0400, Quinn C
>> <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
>>>"kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
>>>famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
>>>
>>>Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
>>>
>>> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
>>>
>>>I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
>>>odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
>>>many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
>>>"also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
>>
>> I don't find it misleading. The author is asserting the aptness of all
>> three epithets; the first two are concessions, and the third gets its
>> contrast from the meanings of the words and by being in a separate
>> sentence. It's a rhetorical device.
>
>If you say it's a rhetorical device, you seem to at least partially
>agree with me. It's not just a straightforward use of those words, as
>in:
>
> This car is clean and shiny. It's also rather new.
> This car looks battered and rusty. But it's actually rather new.
>
>Compare:
>
> This car looks battered and rusty. It's also rather new.
>
>Does it work in this case?

It doesn't for me, for two reasons. First, I cant imagine a context;
second, the rhetorical contrast is blunted by the change from 'looks'
to 'is'.
If you had a context for it, it would work better as
"This car is battered and rusty. It's also rather new."

You could say
"This car looks battered and rusty. It also looks rather new.", but
that is just a contradiction.

--
John
John Varela
2018-07-12 20:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:07:26 UTC, Jack <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:37:32 -0400, Quinn C
> <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
> >* Jack:
> >
> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:36:41 -0400, Quinn C
> >> <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
> >>>"kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
> >>>famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
> >>>
> >>>Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
> >>>
> >>> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
> >>>
> >>>I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
> >>>odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
> >>>many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
> >>>"also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
> >>
> >> I don't find it misleading. The author is asserting the aptness of all
> >> three epithets; the first two are concessions, and the third gets its
> >> contrast from the meanings of the words and by being in a separate
> >> sentence. It's a rhetorical device.
> >
> >If you say it's a rhetorical device, you seem to at least partially
> >agree with me. It's not just a straightforward use of those words, as
> >in:
> >
> > This car is clean and shiny. It's also rather new.
> > This car looks battered and rusty. But it's actually rather new.
> >
> >Compare:
> >
> > This car looks battered and rusty. It's also rather new.
> >
> >Does it work in this case?
>
> It doesn't for me, for two reasons. First, I cant imagine a context;

I can imagine a context: A police procedural TV show. The criminals
have for whatever reason attempted to make a relatively new car look
old. The police have discovered the car and are inspecting it. One
says, "This car looks battered and rusty." Puzzled, he adds, "It's
also rather new."

HTH

> second, the rhetorical contrast is blunted by the change from 'looks'
> to 'is'.
> If you had a context for it, it would work better as
> "This car is battered and rusty. It's also rather new."
>
> You could say
> "This car looks battered and rusty. It also looks rather new.", but
> that is just a contradiction.


--
John Varela
Jerry Friedman
2018-07-12 21:00:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/12/18 2:11 PM, John Varela wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:07:26 UTC, Jack <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:37:32 -0400, Quinn C
>> <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>> * Jack:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:36:41 -0400, Quinn C
>>>> <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
>>>>> "kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
>>>>> famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
>>>>> odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
>>>>> many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
>>>>> "also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
>>>>
>>>> I don't find it misleading. The author is asserting the aptness of all
>>>> three epithets; the first two are concessions, and the third gets its
>>>> contrast from the meanings of the words and by being in a separate
>>>> sentence. It's a rhetorical device.
>>>
>>> If you say it's a rhetorical device, you seem to at least partially
>>> agree with me. It's not just a straightforward use of those words, as
>>> in:
>>>
>>> This car is clean and shiny. It's also rather new.
>>> This car looks battered and rusty. But it's actually rather new.
>>>
>>> Compare:
>>>
>>> This car looks battered and rusty. It's also rather new.
>>>
>>> Does it work in this case?
>>
>> It doesn't for me, for two reasons. First, I cant imagine a context;
>
> I can imagine a context: A police procedural TV show. The criminals
> have for whatever reason attempted to make a relatively new car look
> old. The police have discovered the car and are inspecting it. One
> says, "This car looks battered and rusty." Puzzled, he adds, "It's
> also rather new."
...

Or a TV report. "This car is battered and rusty. It's also rather new.
How did that happen? To answer that question, we went to Boston, and..."

--
Jerry Friedman
Mark Brader
2018-07-12 23:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
John Varela:
>> I can imagine a context: A police procedural TV show. The criminals
>> have for whatever reason attempted to make a relatively new car look
>> old. The police have discovered the car and are inspecting it. One
>> says, "This car looks battered and rusty." Puzzled, he adds, "It's
>> also rather new."

That does't work for me. I say he'd say "But it's rather new" or "No,
it's actually rather new" or something like that.

Jerry Friedman:
> Or a TV report. "This car is battered and rusty. It's also rather new.
> How did that happen? To answer that question, we went to Boston, and..."

But *that* one works for me.
--
Mark Brader "How many pessimists end up by desiring
Toronto the things they fear, in order to prove
***@vex.net that they are right." -- Robert Mallet
John Varela
2018-07-13 19:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:00:36 UTC, Jerry Friedman
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 7/12/18 2:11 PM, John Varela wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:07:26 UTC, Jack <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:37:32 -0400, Quinn C
> >> <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
> >>
> >>> * Jack:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 12:36:41 -0400, Quinn C
> >>>> <***@crommatograph.info> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
> >>>>> "kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
> >>>>> famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
> >>>>> odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
> >>>>> many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
> >>>>> "also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't find it misleading. The author is asserting the aptness of all
> >>>> three epithets; the first two are concessions, and the third gets its
> >>>> contrast from the meanings of the words and by being in a separate
> >>>> sentence. It's a rhetorical device.
> >>>
> >>> If you say it's a rhetorical device, you seem to at least partially
> >>> agree with me. It's not just a straightforward use of those words, as
> >>> in:
> >>>
> >>> This car is clean and shiny. It's also rather new.
> >>> This car looks battered and rusty. But it's actually rather new.
> >>>
> >>> Compare:
> >>>
> >>> This car looks battered and rusty. It's also rather new.
> >>>
> >>> Does it work in this case?
> >>
> >> It doesn't for me, for two reasons. First, I cant imagine a context;
> >
> > I can imagine a context: A police procedural TV show. The criminals
> > have for whatever reason attempted to make a relatively new car look
> > old. The police have discovered the car and are inspecting it. One
> > says, "This car looks battered and rusty." Puzzled, he adds, "It's
> > also rather new."
> ...
>
> Or a TV report. "This car is battered and rusty. It's also rather new.
> How did that happen? To answer that question, we went to Boston, and..."

I'll finish your sentence: "... learned that any car that is parked
on the street there is soon battered and rusty."

--
John Varela
Hen Hanna
2018-07-12 00:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 9:36:44 AM UTC-7, Quinn C wrote:
> Malcolm Gladwell was the invited speaker at this year's corporate
> "kickoff". Not bad. As a Canadian company, we make sure to invite
> famous Canadians, but all of them seem to be working in the US ...
>
> Anyway, he said something along the lines of:
>
> Yes, this distinction is crude and simplified. It is also useful.
>
> I've heard this construction numerous times; it still strikes me as
> odd. There should be a "but" in there. I find myself bothered by too
> many "but"s even in my own writing, but this is a place where I find
> "also" misleading. There must be other alternatives.
>

I can totally hear that sentence in his voice.

And I think this is because he uses that construction a lot in his books.

It sounds trendy.


The [Blink] book in a nutshell: A split-second judgement is crude and simplified. It is also useful.

HH
Loading...