Discussion:
had risen slightly to... /comma question
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2019-11-19 06:03:47 UTC
Permalink
1) However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly increased
after the check-up and Mr Trump’s weight had risen slightly to 243 pounds,
pushing him over the line into obesity.

Source:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-forced-deny-trump-111835003.html

Shouldn't there be a comma after 'slightly'?


Gratefully,
Navi
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-19 06:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly increased
after the check-up and Mr Trump’s weight had risen slightly to 243 pounds,
pushing him over the line into obesity.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-forced-deny-trump-111835003.html
Shouldn't there be a comma after 'slightly'?
No, I don't think so. It's perfectly clear without a comma after "slightly".
Also, you have to keep the comma after "pounds", and having two
commas that close together makes the sentence drag.

bill
Eric Walker
2019-11-19 08:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump’s weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-forced-deny-trump-111835003.html
Shouldn't there be a comma after 'slightly'?
It might be a bit better with it, but the sentence is a mess as it
stands. It looks like something written in haste, and either not edityed
or edited in the same haste.

1. Don't start a sentence with "however".

2. separate clauses with a comma before the conjunction.

3. Try for one idea per sentence.

"But it was reported that his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was
increased after the check-up. Moreover, Mr Trump’s weight had risen to
243 pounds, a slight increase but one that pushed him over the line into
obesity."

(I presume that the preceding sentence somehow justifies the "but" as it
presumably did the "however".)
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Mark Brader
2019-11-19 10:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump’s weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity.
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
However, that's nonsense. "However" as an adverb is a good strong word.
--
Mark Brader "I suppose that the distances from us [to the
Toronto stars] vary so much that some are two or three
***@vex.net times as remote as others." -- Galileo
Paul Carmichael
2019-11-19 14:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump’s weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity.
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
However, that's nonsense. "However" as an adverb is a good strong word.
However you use it.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-11-19 17:05:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:58:03 GMT, Paul Carmichael
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump’s we
ight had risen slightly
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity.
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
However, that's nonsense. "However" as an adverb is a good strong
word
Post by a***@gmail.com
.
However you use it.
However much people complain about it, this is a proscription up with
which I will not put.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Eric Walker
2019-11-20 07:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
However, that's nonsense. "However" as an adverb is a good strong word.
When used properly. Most people, however, do not use it properly. (Nor
would I ever call it "strong", however it is used.)

Mind, no one that I know of is saying that it's "incorrect", in the sense
of violating a grammatical principle. Rather, it is just poor practice,
because as a sentence opener it is quite the reverse of "strong"--rather
feeble, in fact. Plain old "but" does the job much better. But chacun à
son goût, as the old lady who kissed the goat remarked.

As Will Strunk put it, "The word usually serves better when not in first
position."
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Mark Brader
2019-11-20 07:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
However, that's nonsense. "However" as an adverb is a good strong word.
When used properly. Most people, however, do not use it properly.
As it was in the example that was under discussion.
Post by Eric Walker
(Nor would I ever call it "strong", however it is used.)
...Plain old "but" does the job much better.
That is also good.
Post by Eric Walker
As Will Strunk put it, "The word usually serves better when not in first
position."
That's probably the most famous thing that "The Elements of Style"
gets wrong.
--
Mark Brader "'A matter of opinion'[?] I have to say you are
Toronto right. There['s] your opinion, which is wrong,
***@vex.net and mine, which is right." -- Gene Ward Smith

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Eric Walker
2019-11-20 08:00:42 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
As Will Strunk put it, "The word usually serves better when not in
first position."
That's probably the most famous thing that "The Elements of Style"
gets wrong.
Ipse dixit. I don't want to seem discourteous, but I suggest that in a
large-scale survey "From whom would you take language-use guidance?",
Will Strunk would get more votes than Mark Brader.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-20 10:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
As Will Strunk put it, "The word usually serves better when not in
first position."
That's probably the most famous thing that "The Elements of Style"
gets wrong.
Ipse dixit. I don't want to seem discourteous, but I suggest that in a
large-scale survey "From whom would you take language-use guidance?",
Will Strunk would get more votes than Mark Brader.
I don't wish to seem dismissive, but votes are neither here nor there in
matters of correctness. I suspect that Mark Brader is far more likely to
agree with me (or, if you prefer, hold a correct position[1]) on
language use than is Will Strunk.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
[1] These are really just two ways of saying the same thing.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-20 21:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
As Will Strunk put it, "The word usually serves better when not in
first position."
That's probably the most famous thing that "The Elements of Style"
gets wrong.
Ipse dixit. I don't want to seem discourteous, but I suggest that in a
large-scale survey "From whom would you take language-use guidance?",
Will Strunk would get more votes than Mark Brader.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Maybe Mister Cordiality should stick to his high-school Curme, since
he doesn't know how to distinguish Strunk from White.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-20 21:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
As Will Strunk put it, "The word usually serves better when not in first
position."
He put nothing of the sort. That sentence comes from White's 1959
revision.

Moreover, White said only "Avoid." Strunk had said "Do not use."

"Avoid" and "usually" do not amount to Walker's prohibition. And if
what he writes here is any indication, E. B. White is a far better
writer than E. Walker.
Tony Cooper
2019-11-19 14:28:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:22:37 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump’s weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-forced-deny-trump-111835003.html
Shouldn't there be a comma after 'slightly'?
It might be a bit better with it, but the sentence is a mess as it
stands. It looks like something written in haste, and either not edityed
or edited in the same haste.
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find
this objectionable?

It represents the thought - "I'm about to bring up something that does
not follow from what I wrote in the first sentence" - clearly enough.
It alerts the reader to the change in thought.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-19 14:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:22:37 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
<snip>
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find
this objectionable?
I'm not sure whether "objectionable" is the right word. I, too,
frequently start sentences with "however", but in its other sense.

However much I try, however, I am unable to resist the temptation to use
both senses in the same sentence. Let them be sense A and sense B
respectively. When someone begins a sentence with "however", I find
myself expecting sense A, so when sense B emerges it is somewhat
jarring. I don't find this jarring "objectionable", exactly, but I do
find it mildly... er... jarring.
Post by Tony Cooper
It represents the thought - "I'm about to bring up something that does
not follow from what I wrote in the first sentence" - clearly enough.
It alerts the reader to the change in thought.
If you were to mark it off with commas after the first clause, however,
you could alert the reader to the change in thought without risking the
reader being temporarily misled into thinking you meant the other sense.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Tony Cooper
2019-11-19 15:14:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:41:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:22:37 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
<snip>
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find
this objectionable?
I'm not sure whether "objectionable" is the right word.
If Eric says don't start a sentence with "However,", then I think you
can assume he finds it objectionable.

If I write:

"There is clear evidence of climate change. However, not everyone
accepts this."

it can be re-cast as:

"There is clear evidence of climate change. Not everyone, however,
accepts this."

Personally, I don't see the difference in acceptability. I am curious
why Eric does. Eric, who is much more of a hard-liner in usage than I
am, usually has good reasons for his position.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Spains Harden
2019-11-19 15:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:41:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:22:37 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
<snip>
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find
this objectionable?
I'm not sure whether "objectionable" is the right word.
If Eric says don't start a sentence with "However,", then I think you
can assume he finds it objectionable.
"There is clear evidence of climate change. However, not everyone
accepts this."
Change "However," to "But," and you have weak English.
Change "However," to "On the other hand it must be admitted that"

...and you have verbosity. So I find "However," to be an
unobjectionable way to start a sentence.

"So... ?" anyone?
CDB
2019-11-19 17:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you
find this objectionable?
I'm not sure whether "objectionable" is the right word.
If Eric says don't start a sentence with "However,", then I think
you can assume he finds it objectionable.
"There is clear evidence of climate change. However, not everyone
accepts this."
Change "However," to "But," and you have weak English. Change
"However," to "On the other hand it must be admitted that"
...and you have verbosity. So I find "However," to be an
unobjectionable way to start a sentence.
"So... ?" anyone?
There's "nevertheless".
HVS
2019-11-19 17:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you
find this objectionable?
I'm not sure whether "objectionable" is the right word.
If Eric says don't start a sentence with "However,", then I think
you can assume he finds it objectionable.
"There is clear evidence of climate change. However, not
everyone
Post by CDB
Post by Tony Cooper
accepts this."
Change "However," to "But," and you have weak English. Change
"However," to "On the other hand it must be admitted that"
...and you have verbosity. So I find "However," to be an
unobjectionable way to start a sentence.
"So... ?" anyone?
There's "nevertheless".
Equally valid, but I can't see how it would be an improvement on
"however".

Cheers, Harvey
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-19 18:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
Post by CDB
Post by Spains Harden
...and you have verbosity. So I find "However," to be an
unobjectionable way to start a sentence.
"So... ?" anyone?
There's "nevertheless".
Equally valid, but I can't see how it would be an improvement on
"however".
It's like complaining about "hopefully" while ignoring all the
other sentence-adverbs that express the speaker's attitude.
CDB
2019-11-20 13:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do
you find this objectionable?
I'm not sure whether "objectionable" is the right word.
If Eric says don't start a sentence with "However,", then I
think you can assume he finds it objectionable.
"There is clear evidence of climate change. However, not
everyone
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Tony Cooper
accepts this."
Change "However," to "But," and you have weak English. Change
"However," to "On the other hand it must be admitted that"
...and you have verbosity. So I find "However," to be an >
unobjectionable way to start a sentence.
"So... ?" anyone?
There's "nevertheless".
Equally valid, but I can't see how it would be an improvement on
"however".
I would be readier to use it at the beginning of a clause or sentence.
It seems stronger than "but" to me, as well.

All according to my personal odometer, of course.
Madhu
2019-11-20 02:46:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you
find this objectionable?
I'm not sure whether "objectionable" is the right word.
If Eric says don't start a sentence with "However,", then I think
you can assume he finds it objectionable.
"There is clear evidence of climate change. However, not everyone
accepts this."
Change "However," to "But," and you have weak English. Change
"However," to "On the other hand it must be admitted that"
...and you have verbosity. So I find "However," to be an
unobjectionable way to start a sentence.
"So... ?" anyone?
There's "nevertheless".
And there's "though" and "albeit" - the I think the latter is
unobjectionable at the start of a sentence. If it is not at the start I
think it naturally includes a colon or semicolon before it (even if the
8typograph is missing)
CDB
2019-11-20 13:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madhu
Post by CDB
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do
you find this objectionable?
I'm not sure whether "objectionable" is the right word.
If Eric says don't start a sentence with "However,", then I
think you can assume he finds it objectionable.
"There is clear evidence of climate change. However, not
everyone accepts this."
Change "However," to "But," and you have weak English. Change
"However," to "On the other hand it must be admitted that"
...and you have verbosity. So I find "However," to be an
unobjectionable way to start a sentence.
"So... ?" anyone?
There's "nevertheless".
And there's "though" and "albeit" - the I think the latter is
unobjectionable at the start of a sentence.
The usage is not the same. You could not substitute either of those
words for initial "however" in the same context.
Post by Madhu
If it is not at the start I think it naturally includes a colon or
semicolon before it (even if the 8typograph is missing)
What does, in particular? I'm afraid I don't follow.
Madhu
2019-11-20 15:34:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Madhu
Post by CDB
There's "nevertheless".
And there's "though" and "albeit" - the I think the latter is
unobjectionable at the start of a sentence.
The usage is not the same. You could not substitute either of those
words for initial "however" in the same context.
I see. Now that I've read the article I think I agree. Though I
wouldn't have flinched at a "though" or "although" but I understand my
usage is (most probably) incorrect.
Post by CDB
Post by Madhu
If it is not at the start I think it naturally includes a colon or
semicolon before it (even if the 8typograph is missing)
What does, in particular? I'm afraid I don't follow.
I was suggesting that the punctuation before an "albeit" could be
dispensed with without hurting the reader (who i imagine would be
inclined to supply the pause on seeing the word)
CDB
2019-11-20 20:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madhu
Post by CDB
Post by Madhu
Post by CDB
There's "nevertheless".
And there's "though" and "albeit" - the I think the latter is
unobjectionable at the start of a sentence.
The usage is not the same. You could not substitute either of
those words for initial "however" in the same context.
I see. Now that I've read the article I think I agree. Though I
wouldn't have flinched at a "though" or "although" but I understand
my usage is (most probably) incorrect.
Post by CDB
Post by Madhu
If it is not at the start I think it naturally includes a colon
or semicolon before it (even if the 8typograph is missing)
What does, in particular? I'm afraid I don't follow.
I was suggesting that the punctuation before an "albeit" could be
dispensed with without hurting the reader (who i imagine would be
inclined to supply the pause on seeing the word)
Thank you. I think I would precede "albeit" with a comma, myself, and
follow it with an adjective. Actually, I think I hardly ever use it.

"Our cousins' visit to our summer cottage, albeit very welcome, raised
some logistical problems." Nah. Pretentious. It was welcome but it
raised problems.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-20 09:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 14:41:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:22:37 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
<snip>
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find
this objectionable?
I'm not sure whether "objectionable" is the right word.
If Eric says don't start a sentence with "However,", then I think you
can assume he finds it objectionable.
"There is clear evidence of climate change. However, not everyone
accepts this."
Change "However," to "But," and you have weak English.
Nonsense
Post by Spains Harden
Change "However," to "On the other hand it must be admitted that"
...and you have verbosity.
OK
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-19 18:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
"There is clear evidence of climate change. However, not everyone
accepts this."
"There is clear evidence of climate change. Not everyone, however,
accepts this."
Personally, I don't see the difference in acceptability. I am curious
why Eric does. Eric, who is much more of a hard-liner in usage than I
am, usually has good reasons for his position.
Another falsehood. He never offers a "reason" for his position
(good or bad), he quotes a high-school-level century-old grammar
book.

Fowler offers reasons, and once in a while they can be seen to
be unreasonable. Walker is no Fowler.
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-19 17:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:22:37 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
<snip>
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find
this objectionable?
I'm not sure whether "objectionable" is the right word. I, too,
frequently start sentences with "however", but in its other sense.
However much I try, however, I am unable to resist the temptation to use
both senses in the same sentence. Let them be sense A and sense B
respectively. When someone begins a sentence with "however", I find
myself expecting sense A, so when sense B emerges it is somewhat
jarring. I don't find this jarring "objectionable", exactly, but I do
find it mildly... er... jarring.
Post by Tony Cooper
It represents the thought - "I'm about to bring up something that does
not follow from what I wrote in the first sentence" - clearly enough.
It alerts the reader to the change in thought.
If you were to mark it off with commas after the first clause, however,
you could alert the reader to the change in thought without risking the
reader being temporarily misled into thinking you meant the other sense.
But why isn't that just as jarring? The sentence could be,
"If you were to mark it off with commas after the first clause,
however ponderous the result would be, you could..." Of course
there's a comma after the "however" in your example, which tells you
it means "nevertheless", but in standard writing there's also a comma
after an initial "however" when it has that meaning.
--
Jerry Friedman
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-19 17:52:44 UTC
Permalink
On 19/11/2019 17:00, Jerry Friedman wrote:

<snip>
Post by Jerry Friedman
But why isn't that just as jarring?
I have to confess that I don't know. I guess it's just the way I was
taught at school.

It's a bit like F=ma. Yes, you could write it as F=am, and you could
argue that multiplication is commutative, so it carries the same
meaning... and yet...
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
John Varela
2019-11-19 21:34:21 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 17:52:44 UTC, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Jerry Friedman
But why isn't that just as jarring?
I have to confess that I don't know. I guess it's just the way I was
taught at school.
It's a bit like F=ma. Yes, you could write it as F=am, and you could
argue that multiplication is commutative, so it carries the same
meaning... and yet...
Could be because the units, written out kilogram meters per second
per second works, while meters per second per second kilogram is a
mess.
--
John Varela
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-20 07:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 17:52:44 UTC, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Jerry Friedman
But why isn't that just as jarring?
I have to confess that I don't know. I guess it's just the way I was
taught at school.
It's a bit like F=ma. Yes, you could write it as F=am, and you could
argue that multiplication is commutative, so it carries the same
meaning... and yet...
Could be because the units, written out kilogram meters per second
per second works, while meters per second per second kilogram is a
mess.
It's no more of a mess than getting "however" in the wrong place. After
all, units are commutative too.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Mark Brader
2019-11-20 07:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
Post by Richard Heathfield
It's a bit like F=ma. Yes, you could write it as F=am, and you could
argue that multiplication is commutative, so it carries the same
meaning... and yet...
Could be because the units, written out kilogram meters per second
per second works, while meters per second per second kilogram is a
mess.
No, it couldn't be. Just like in matters of English usage, F = ma is
the customary way to write it because it's what people use.
...units are commutative too.
Multiplication of units is commutative, but it is not necessarily
represented by simply concatenating the unit names or symbols:
you need to write the result ambiguously. You can choose to write
kg m/s² as (m/s²) kg, but you need the parentheses unless you make
the scope unambiguous another way, e.g. by using a horizontal
fraction bar and putting the "kg" off to the right.

Also note that one division of units is used in constructing a unit
name these days. m/s² are meters per second squared, not meters per
second per second.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "*I* never have problems distinguishing
***@vex.net | Peter Seebach and Steve Summit!" -- Steve Summit

My text in this article is in the public domain.
John Varela
2019-11-20 20:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by John Varela
Post by Richard Heathfield
It's a bit like F=ma. Yes, you could write it as F=am, and you could
argue that multiplication is commutative, so it carries the same
meaning... and yet...
Could be because the units, written out kilogram meters per second
per second works, while meters per second per second kilogram is a
mess.
No, it couldn't be. Just like in matters of English usage, F = ma is
the customary way to write it because it's what people use.
...units are commutative too.
Multiplication of units is commutative, but it is not necessarily
you need to write the result ambiguously. You can choose to write
kg m/s² as (m/s²) kg, but you need the parentheses unless you make
the scope unambiguous another way, e.g. by using a horizontal
fraction bar and putting the "kg" off to the right.
Also note that one division of units is used in constructing a unit
name these days. m/s² are meters per second squared, not meters per
second per second.
Well, I guess I'm just old-fashioned. I know m/sec² perfectly well
because I have done dimensional analysis, which is one reason I tend
to write out factors with their units in mind.
--
John Varela
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-20 09:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 17:52:44 UTC, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Jerry Friedman
But why isn't that just as jarring?
I have to confess that I don't know. I guess it's just the way I was
taught at school.
It's a bit like F=ma. Yes, you could write it as F=am, and you could
argue that multiplication is commutative, so it carries the same
meaning... and yet...
Could be because the units, written out kilogram meters per second
per second works, while meters per second per second kilogram is a
mess.
The truth (or not) of the proposition is independent of the units in
which it is expressed.
--
athel
RH Draney
2019-11-19 15:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:22:37 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find
this objectionable?
It represents the thought - "I'm about to bring up something that does
not follow from what I wrote in the first sentence" - clearly enough.
It alerts the reader to the change in thought.


....r
Tony Cooper
2019-11-19 16:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:22:37 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find
this objectionable?
It represents the thought - "I'm about to bring up something that does
not follow from what I wrote in the first sentence" - clearly enough.
It alerts the reader to the change in thought.
http://youtu.be/RHlLmYVCzKY
I saw Professor Erwin Corey at the Gate of Horn in Chicago in 1961 or
1962.

He was one of those performers who made you laugh even when he wasn't
saying something funny. You laughed because you knew something funny
was coming.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Eric Walker
2019-11-20 07:42:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:28:27 -0500, Tony Cooper wrote:

[...]
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find this
objectionable?
It represents the thought - "I'm about to bring up something that does
not follow from what I wrote in the first sentence" - clearly enough. It
alerts the reader to the change in thought.
At the head of a sentence, it weakens the sentence. It is, one might
say, a fulcrum point between two thoughts. "Most of the members thought
the idea sound. Jane, however, found it awful." If one recasts that as
"However, Jane found it awful," the fulcrum now seems to join two
distinct sentences rather than two parts of the same sentence. Or,
putting it another way, one has constructed a see-saw where the the
fulcrum is at one end, which is a trifle awkward.

That is not catastrophic; it is just language that is a little less
effective. It's one of those fine points, like replacing "this" with
"that" wherever the sense permits, that makes language just that little
bit tighter and more effective.

I do wonder, however, at those who say that using "But" to open when one
wants a true counterpoint to the preceding sentence is somehow "weak".
One-syllable words stating and ending with consonants are typically
rather punchy.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Tony Cooper
2019-11-20 14:08:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 07:42:41 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find this
objectionable?
It represents the thought - "I'm about to bring up something that does
not follow from what I wrote in the first sentence" - clearly enough. It
alerts the reader to the change in thought.
At the head of a sentence, it weakens the sentence. It is, one might
say, a fulcrum point between two thoughts. "Most of the members thought
the idea sound. Jane, however, found it awful." If one recasts that as
"However, Jane found it awful," the fulcrum now seems to join two
distinct sentences rather than two parts of the same sentence. Or,
putting it another way, one has constructed a see-saw where the the
fulcrum is at one end, which is a trifle awkward.
That is not catastrophic; it is just language that is a little less
effective. It's one of those fine points, like replacing "this" with
"that" wherever the sense permits, that makes language just that little
bit tighter and more effective.
I do wonder, however, at those who say that using "But" to open when one
wants a true counterpoint to the preceding sentence is somehow "weak".
One-syllable words stating and ending with consonants are typically
rather punchy.
Thanks for the reply. Yours is an interesting view of "why
objectionable?".

I'm not sure I buy it completely, but I do see your point.

On the "but" usage, I see "However," as introducing a balancing
counterpoint and "But," introducing an offsetting point in a slightly
negative tone.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-20 14:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find this
objectionable?
It represents the thought - "I'm about to bring up something that does
not follow from what I wrote in the first sentence" - clearly enough. It
alerts the reader to the change in thought.
At the head of a sentence, it weakens the sentence. It is, one might
say, a fulcrum point between two thoughts. "Most of the members thought
the idea sound. Jane, however, found it awful." If one recasts that as
"However, Jane found it awful," the fulcrum now seems to join two
distinct sentences rather than two parts of the same sentence. Or,
putting it another way, one has constructed a see-saw where the the
fulcrum is at one end, which is a trifle awkward.
So these are slightly awkward see-saws with the fulcrum at one end? Or
is "but" somehow not a fulcrum?

"Most of the members thought the idea sound. But Jane found it awful."

"Most of the members thought the idea sound, but Jane found it awful."

In other words, I don't follow your analogy there one little bit. The
"However" is the fulcrum or something between two thoughts. The
thoughts are "Most of the members thought the idea sound." and "Jane
found it awful." At the beginning of the second sentence, the fulcrum
comes precisely between the two thoughts. In the middle of the second,
it comes between the subject and the predicate of the second thought. I
realize you did that to emphasize the contrast between Jane and the
other members, but the analogy doesn't work.
Post by Eric Walker
That is not catastrophic; it is just language that is a little less
effective. It's one of those fine points, like replacing "this" with
"that" wherever the sense permits, that makes language just that little
bit tighter and more effective.
I do wonder, however, at those who say that using "But" to open when one
wants a true counterpoint to the preceding sentence is somehow "weak".
One-syllable words stating and ending with consonants are typically
rather punchy.
Not unaccented ones. "However" is "heavier" than "but", and sometimes I
feel the need for that heaviness. At other times, especially in the
middle of a sentence, I find it too heavy. Your "Jane" sentence is one
such--the simple "Jane found it awful" can't support the weight of a
"however" in the middle. Also in long sentences, especially with lots
of commas, a "however" in the middle can drag the whole thing down to
Davy Jones's locker. In my opinion.

I often like "However" (or "But") at the beginning because it tells the
reader right away to expect a contrast, especially when the alternative
is to have it near the end. That strikes me as one of those fine points
that make language more effective.

Finally, there's not always a good place to insert a "however". The
original passage was

"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.

"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly to
243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."

I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong, but the "however" can't go anywhere else. It
could be replaced with "but", but I prefer "However".
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
2019-11-21 02:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Tony Cooper
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find
this objectionable?
It represents the thought - "I'm about to bring up something that does
not follow from what I wrote in the first sentence" - clearly enough.
It alerts the reader to the change in thought.
At the head of a sentence, it weakens the sentence. It is, one might
say, a fulcrum point between two thoughts. "Most of the members
thought the idea sound. Jane, however, found it awful." If one
recasts that as "However, Jane found it awful," the fulcrum now seems
to join two distinct sentences rather than two parts of the same
sentence. Or, putting it another way, one has constructed a see-saw
where the the fulcrum is at one end, which is a trifle awkward.
So these are slightly awkward see-saws with the fulcrum at one end? Or
is "but" somehow not a fulcrum?
"Most of the members thought the idea sound. But Jane found it awful."
"Most of the members thought the idea sound, but Jane found it awful."
In other words, I don't follow your analogy there one little bit. The
"However" is the fulcrum or something between two thoughts. The
thoughts are "Most of the members thought the idea sound." and "Jane
found it awful." At the beginning of the second sentence, the fulcrum
comes precisely between the two thoughts. In the middle of the second,
it comes between the subject and the predicate of the second thought. I
realize you did that to emphasize the contrast between Jane and the
other members, but the analogy doesn't work.
Post by Eric Walker
That is not catastrophic; it is just language that is a little less
effective. It's one of those fine points, like replacing "this" with
"that" wherever the sense permits, that makes language just that little
bit tighter and more effective.
I do wonder, however, at those who say that using "But" to open when
one wants a true counterpoint to the preceding sentence is somehow
"weak". One-syllable words stating and ending with consonants are
typically rather punchy.
Not unaccented ones. "However" is "heavier" than "but", and sometimes I
feel the need for that heaviness. At other times, especially in the
middle of a sentence, I find it too heavy. Your "Jane" sentence is one
such--the simple "Jane found it awful" can't support the weight of a
"however" in the middle. Also in long sentences, especially with lots
of commas, a "however" in the middle can drag the whole thing down to
Davy Jones's locker. In my opinion.
I often like "However" (or "But") at the beginning because it tells the
reader right away to expect a contrast, especially when the alternative
is to have it near the end. That strikes me as one of those fine points
that make language more effective.
Does not "But" tell the reader to expect a contrast?

In speech, especially when the speaker seeks to emphasize a point, he or
she will issue the first statement--say, "Most of the members thought the
idea sound--then pause for effect and say loudly (with another pause
after) "But!" then make the second statement. I do not feel that
"However!" used this would seem at all as strong. YMMV.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Finally, there's not always a good place to insert a "however". The
original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly to
243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong, but the "however" can't go anywhere else. It
could be replaced with "but", but I prefer "However".
Really? "His dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug [,however] was
[,however] reportedly increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight
had risen slightly to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
(Pick your spot for placement.)

In that particular sentence, perhaps better than either "but" or
"however" would be "nonetheless", as more definitely shading what follows
as something not quite credible in light of what was just said.

Really, the whole sentence is (ObAUE) ass-backwards.
Post by Jerry Friedman
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly to
243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
"Mr Trump's weight, however, had risen slightly to 243 pounds, pushing
him over the line into obesity, and his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering
drug was reportedly increased after the check-up."
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-21 03:27:06 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
I do wonder, however, at those who say that using "But" to open when
one wants a true counterpoint to the preceding sentence is somehow
"weak". One-syllable words stating and ending with consonants are
typically rather punchy.
Not unaccented ones. "However" is "heavier" than "but", and sometimes I
feel the need for that heaviness. At other times, especially in the
middle of a sentence, I find it too heavy. Your "Jane" sentence is one
such--the simple "Jane found it awful" can't support the weight of a
"however" in the middle. Also in long sentences, especially with lots
of commas, a "however" in the middle can drag the whole thing down to
Davy Jones's locker. In my opinion.
I often like "However" (or "But") at the beginning because it tells the
reader right away to expect a contrast, especially when the alternative
is to have it near the end. That strikes me as one of those fine points
that make language more effective.
Does not "But" tell the reader to expect a contrast?
Did I not say it did?
Post by Eric Walker
In speech, especially when the speaker seeks to emphasize a point, he or
she will issue the first statement--say, "Most of the members thought the
idea sound--then pause for effect and say loudly (with another pause
after) "But!" then make the second statement. I do not feel that
"However!" used this would seem at all as strong. YMMV.
True, in speech one can do that, but I didn't think we were talking
about that sort of special effect.
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
Finally, there's not always a good place to insert a "however". The
original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly to
243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong, but the "however" can't go anywhere else. It
could be replaced with "but", but I prefer "However".
Really? "His dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug [,however] was
[,however] reportedly increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight
had risen slightly to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
(Pick your spot for placement.)
Neither, since the "however" appears to apply only to the first clause
but is intended to apply to both.
Post by Eric Walker
In that particular sentence, perhaps better than either "but" or
"however" would be "nonetheless", as more definitely shading what follows
as something not quite credible in light of what was just said.
The question then would be where to put the "nonetheless".

Is it really not quite credible that someone with a normal resting heart
rate and blood pressure is at the border of obesity and needs more than
a minimum of a cholesterol-lowering drug?
Post by Eric Walker
Really, the whole sentence is (ObAUE) ass-backwards.
Certainly there's no point in putting "Mr. Trump's" after "his" when the
whole article is about him.
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly to
243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
"Mr Trump's weight, however, had risen slightly to 243 pounds, pushing
him over the line into obesity, and his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering
drug was reportedly increased after the check-up."
I'd have though that the cholesterol-drug dosage was based on his blood
cholesterol, not on a slight increase in weight. If so, I don't see
that the order of the two pieces of information matters. They're
connected only in being bad signs.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2019-11-21 03:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
I often like "However" (or "But") at the beginning because it tells
the reader right away to expect a contrast, especially when the
alternative is to have it near the end. That strikes me as one of
those fine points that make language more effective.
Does not "But" tell the reader to expect a contrast?
Fashions change, apparently. It's not so many decades ago that it was
absolutely taboo to begin a sentence with "But".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-21 07:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jerry Friedman
I often like "However" (or "But") at the beginning because it tells
the reader right away to expect a contrast, especially when the
alternative is to have it near the end. That strikes me as one of
those fine points that make language more effective.
Does not "But" tell the reader to expect a contrast?
Fashions change, apparently. It's not so many decades ago that it was
absolutely taboo to begin a sentence with "But".
It was when I learned English composition in the 1950s. Likewise
"And...", which made me wonder what the English teachers thought when
we sang a hymn beginning "And did those feet ..." in chapel.
--
athel
RH Draney
2019-11-21 11:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Fashions change, apparently. It's not so many decades ago that it was
absolutely taboo to begin a sentence with "But".
It was when I learned English composition in the 1950s. Likewise
"And...", which made me wonder what the English teachers thought when we
sang a hymn beginning "And did those feet ..." in chapel.
Or years later, a song beginning:

"And here's to you, Mrs Robinson..."
"And I wake up in the morning with my hair down in my eyes and she
says hi..."
"And if it's there, don't let it get you down; you can take it..."
"And if she should tell you come closer, and if she tempts you with
her charms..."
"And now the end is near, and so I face the final curtain..."
"And the sign said long-haired freaky people need not apply..."
"And they call it puppy love..."
"And when I go away, I know my heart can stay with my love..."
"And when I see the sign that points one way..."

....r
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-21 18:35:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Fashions change, apparently. It's not so many decades ago that it was
absolutely taboo to begin a sentence with "But".
It was when I learned English composition in the 1950s. Likewise
"And...", which made me wonder what the English teachers thought when
we sang a hymn beginning "And did those feet ..." in chapel.
"And here's to you, Mrs Robinson..."
"And I wake up in the morning with my hair down in my eyes and she
says hi..."
"And if it's there, don't let it get you down; you can take it..."
"And if she should tell you come closer, and if she tempts you with
her charms..."
"And now the end is near, and so I face the final curtain..."
"And the sign said long-haired freaky people need not apply..."
"And they call it puppy love..."
"And when I go away, I know my heart can stay with my love..."
"And when I see the sign that points one way..."
Yes, but I don't think we sang songs in that genre in chapel.
--
athel
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-11-22 22:49:07 UTC
Permalink
The original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly to
243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.

Care to expand?

/Anders, Denmark.
Mark Brader
2019-11-22 23:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Jerry Friedman
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg..."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Blood pressures are reported in North America as two numbers separated
by a slash, not a period, indicating systolic and diastolic pressure.
(In speech the slash is pronounced "over", as a fraction bar would be.)
Do they do it differently in Sweden?

There is also a space missing before "Hg". It should be "118/80 mm Hg"
(or at least that's the obvious correction; I don't know the man's
actual blood pressure).
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "If you wish so, we write your consummations
***@vex.net | on your bill." --Swiss hotel services handbook

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-11-26 22:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Jerry Friedman
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg..."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Blood pressures are reported in North America as two numbers separated
by a slash, not a period, indicating systolic and diastolic pressure.
(In speech the slash is pronounced "over", as a fraction bar would be.)
Duh - thank you (and all the others who pointed out the obvious).
Post by Mark Brader
Do they do it differently in Sweden?
I don't know, but we do do the same in Denmark.
Post by Mark Brader
There is also a space missing before "Hg". It should be "118/80 mm Hg"
As a unit, there seems to be some disagreement between IBWM and AMA, if
<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimetre_of_mercury> can be believed.

/Anders, Denmark.
Mark Brader
2019-11-27 01:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Do they do it differently in Sweden?
I don't know, but we do do the same in Denmark.
But is Denmark different from Sweden? :-)

Sorry about that, eh?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Pleasant dreams!"
***@vex.net | "I'll dream of Canada." -- THE SUSPECT
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-11-28 23:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Do they do it differently in Sweden?
I don't know, but we do do the same in Denmark.
But is Denmark different from Sweden? :-)
Somewhat, yes. And one isn't the capital of the other.
Post by Mark Brader
Sorry about that, eh?
np.

/Anders, Denmark
Peter Moylan
2019-11-29 01:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Do they do it differently in Sweden?
I don't know, but we do do the same in Denmark.
But is Denmark different from Sweden? :-)
Somewhat, yes. And one isn't the capital of the other.
Please, sir, I know, I know. The capital of Denmark is D.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-27 07:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Jerry Friedman
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg..."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Blood pressures are reported in North America as two numbers separated
by a slash, not a period, indicating systolic and diastolic pressure.
(In speech the slash is pronounced "over", as a fraction bar would be.)
Duh - thank you (and all the others who pointed out the obvious).
Post by Mark Brader
Do they do it differently in Sweden?
I don't know, but we do do the same in Denmark.
Post by Mark Brader
There is also a space missing before "Hg". It should be "118/80 mm Hg"
As a unit, there seems to be some disagreement between IBWM and AMA, if
<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimetre_of_mercury> can be believed.
I'd pay more attention to the International Bureau of Weights and
Measures than to the American Medical Association. It's probably just
another case of Americans ignoring international agreements.
--
athel
musika
2019-11-23 00:00:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
The original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Care to expand?
I imagine it should be 118/80
118 systolic/80 diastolic.
--
Ray
UK
RH Draney
2019-11-23 02:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
The original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Care to expand?
I imagine it should be 118/80
118 systolic/80 diastolic.
Which is in fact almost a textbook example of a "normal" blood
pressure...I have several digital cuffs and wrist monitors from an
assortment of manufacturers, and every single one of them showed a
picture of the display on the box with a reading of 120/80....r
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-23 05:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
The original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Care to expand?
I imagine it should be 118/80
118 systolic/80 diastolic.
Which is in fact almost a textbook example of a "normal" blood pressure
Yes. A week ago my doctor took my blood pressure (as a routine, as I
was seeing him for a flu vaccination) as 12 / 8, which he said was
normal.
...I have several digital cuffs and wrist monitors from an assortment
of manufacturers, and every single one of them showed a picture of the
display on the box with a reading of 120/80....r
--
athel
Tony Cooper
2019-11-23 06:19:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:31:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by musika
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
The original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Care to expand?
I imagine it should be 118/80
118 systolic/80 diastolic.
Which is in fact almost a textbook example of a "normal" blood pressure
Yes. A week ago my doctor took my blood pressure (as a routine, as I
was seeing him for a flu vaccination) as 12 / 8, which he said was
normal.
Is blood pressure in your area normally given that way? 120 over 80
would be normal here and also be in the normal range. Dropping the 0s
is not done.

When my blood pressure is taken it is always in the low normal area.
Invariably the person taking the blood pressure will make some comment
about how good that is as if I've done something that deserves a
compliment.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-23 06:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:31:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by musika
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
The original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Care to expand?
I imagine it should be 118/80
118 systolic/80 diastolic.
Which is in fact almost a textbook example of a "normal" blood pressure
Yes. A week ago my doctor took my blood pressure (as a routine, as I
was seeing him for a flu vaccination) as 12 / 8, which he said was
normal.
Is blood pressure in your area normally given that way?
I've no idea, but that's how my doctor expresses it.
Post by Tony Cooper
120 over 80
would be normal here and also be in the normal range. Dropping the 0s
is not done.
Thinking of the equipment used to measure it I'd be surprised if the 0s
were significant.
Post by Tony Cooper
When my blood pressure is taken it is always in the low normal area.
Invariably the person taking the blood pressure will make some comment
about how good that is as if I've done something that deserves a
compliment.
--
athel
Tony Cooper
2019-11-23 07:19:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 07:50:49 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:31:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by musika
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
The original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Care to expand?
I imagine it should be 118/80
118 systolic/80 diastolic.
Which is in fact almost a textbook example of a "normal" blood pressure
Yes. A week ago my doctor took my blood pressure (as a routine, as I
was seeing him for a flu vaccination) as 12 / 8, which he said was
normal.
Is blood pressure in your area normally given that way?
I've no idea, but that's how my doctor expresses it.
Post by Tony Cooper
120 over 80
would be normal here and also be in the normal range. Dropping the 0s
is not done.
Thinking of the equipment used to measure it I'd be surprised if the 0s
were significant.
At one time, sphygmomanometers consisted of a cuff with a bulb and a
device with a mercury-filled glass tube similar to a thermometer. Then
the dial style became popular. The person taking the blood pressure
read the number on the glass tube where the mercury stopped, or on the
dial where the needle came to rest. The dial was about 2.5" to 3" in
diameter, and the tick marks were closely spaced. In both cases, an
accurate two or three-digit number was difficult to discern.

Now we have digital sphygmomanometers that output precise two and
three digit figures.

We've seen the same change that we saw in the advent of digital
clocks. People used to say "It's about two-twenty" or even round the
figure off to the nearest five minute figure. Now, we say "It's
two-twenty-three because that's the figure we see. (On our phone,
now, not our watch.)
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
2019-11-23 09:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:31:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes. A week ago my doctor took my blood pressure (as a routine,
as I was seeing him for a flu vaccination) as 12 / 8, which he
said was normal.
Is blood pressure in your area normally given that way?
I've no idea, but that's how my doctor expresses it.
Post by Tony Cooper
120 over 80 would be normal here and also be in the normal range.
Dropping the 0s is not done.
Thinking of the equipment used to measure it I'd be surprised if the
0s were significant.
When I consider how much my own blood pressure varies from day to day,
or even between two readings taken one after the other, I'm inclined to
think that the figures should be expressed as some number plus or minus
20%. It's certainly not repeatable to within 1 mm Hg.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
RH Draney
2019-11-23 12:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
When I consider how much my own blood pressure varies from day to day,
or even between two readings taken one after the other, I'm inclined to
think that the figures should be expressed as some number plus or minus
20%. It's certainly not repeatable to within 1 mm Hg.
Plus or minus *twenty* percent?!...that would make the "normal" systolic
the range 96 to 144, and diastolic from 64 to 96...none of those
extremes is anything like what I'd call healthy....

I'm happy to give you five percent either way, but any more than that is
going to require extensive documentation before I'll allow it....r
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-23 15:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:31:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes. A week ago my doctor took my blood pressure (as a routine, as I
was seeing him for a flu vaccination) as 12 / 8, which he said was
normal.
Is blood pressure in your area normally given that way?
I've no idea, but that's how my doctor expresses it.
Post by Tony Cooper
120 over 80
would be normal here and also be in the normal range. Dropping the
0s is not done.
Thinking of the equipment used to measure it I'd be surprised if the
0s were significant.
The readings rarely end with 0.

Several doctors and nurses have mentioned to me that humans usually
get better results than the newfangled automatic sphygmomanometers.
Peter Young
2019-11-23 16:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:31:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes. A week ago my doctor took my blood pressure (as a routine, as I
was seeing him for a flu vaccination) as 12 / 8, which he said was
normal.
Is blood pressure in your area normally given that way?
I've no idea, but that's how my doctor expresses it.
Post by Tony Cooper
120 over 80
would be normal here and also be in the normal range. Dropping the
0s is not done.
Thinking of the equipment used to measure it I'd be surprised if the
0s were significant.
The readings rarely end with 0.
Several doctors and nurses have mentioned to me that humans usually
get better results than the newfangled automatic sphygmomanometers.
I have no doubt whatever from my professional experience that the
automated BP machines are less accurate than the traditional method by
auscultation. My practice included many operations when I needed to follow
the BP using an arterial cannula and transducer, and the automated
machines' readings didn't tally with the direct readings.

The General Practitioners (AmE family physicians) at the practice that I
attend have gone back to the traditional method.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
John Varela
2019-11-24 02:58:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:31:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Yes. A week ago my doctor took my blood pressure (as a routine, as I
was seeing him for a flu vaccination) as 12 / 8, which he said was
normal.
Is blood pressure in your area normally given that way?
I've no idea, but that's how my doctor expresses it.
Post by Tony Cooper
120 over 80
would be normal here and also be in the normal range. Dropping the
0s is not done.
Thinking of the equipment used to measure it I'd be surprised if the
0s were significant.
The readings rarely end with 0.
Several doctors and nurses have mentioned to me that humans usually
get better results than the newfangled automatic sphygmomanometers.
I have no doubt whatever from my professional experience that the
automated BP machines are less accurate than the traditional method by
auscultation. My practice included many operations when I needed to follow
the BP using an arterial cannula and transducer, and the automated
machines' readings didn't tally with the direct readings.
The General Practitioners (AmE family physicians) at the practice that I
attend have gone back to the traditional method.
WIWAL they were GPs here, too. Nowadays GPs have pretty much
disappeared and family doctors are usually internists.
--
John Varela
Peter Moylan
2019-11-24 04:07:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
The General Practitioners (AmE family physicians) at the practice that I
attend have gone back to the traditional method.
WIWAL they were GPs here, too. Nowadays GPs have pretty much
disappeared and family doctors are usually internists.
Who do you see when it's an external problem, e.g. skin infection?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
RH Draney
2019-11-24 09:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Young
The General Practitioners (AmE family physicians) at the practice that I
attend have gone back to the traditional method.
WIWAL they were GPs here, too.  Nowadays GPs have pretty much
disappeared and family doctors are usually internists.
Who do you see when it's an external problem, e.g. skin infection?
Nobody, usually (I recently removed a big hard wart from the back of my
hand through the expediency of crushing a bunch of aluminum cans for
recycling; after I finished I noticed the hand was bleeding a bit, and a
couple of days later the last remnants of the wart just dropped off)....

If a skin problem is bad enough to need expert help, I usually look up a
local curandera....r
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-24 14:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
The General Practitioners (AmE family physicians) at the practice that I
attend have gone back to the traditional method.
WIWAL they were GPs here, too. Nowadays GPs have pretty much
disappeared and family doctors are usually internists.
Who do you see when it's an external problem, e.g. skin infection?
If it's serious the PCP (primary care physician) refers you to a
dermatologist.
John Varela
2019-11-24 19:14:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 04:07:13 UTC, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by John Varela
Post by Peter Young
The General Practitioners (AmE family physicians) at the practice that I
attend have gone back to the traditional method.
WIWAL they were GPs here, too. Nowadays GPs have pretty much
disappeared and family doctors are usually internists.
Who do you see when it's an external problem, e.g. skin infection?
The first time I had an attack of eczema I went to the internist,
because I didn't have a dermatologist. Nowadays I do have a
dermatologist so that's where I would go with a skin problem that I
thought needed professional attention.
--
John Varela
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-24 22:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Young
The General Practitioners (AmE family physicians) at the practice that I
attend have gone back to the traditional method.
WIWAL they were GPs here, too.  Nowadays GPs have pretty much
disappeared and family doctors are usually internists.
Who do you see when it's an external problem, e.g. skin infection?
My copy of the OED recognises this problem.

internist U.S.

(ɪnˈtɜːnɪst)

[f. intern(al medicine + -ist.]

A general physician; also, a specialist in internal medicine.
--
Sam Plusnet
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-11-25 11:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Young
The General Practitioners (AmE family physicians) at the practice
that I attend have gone back to the traditional method.
WIWAL they were GPs here, too.  Nowadays GPs have pretty much
disappeared and family doctors are usually internists.
Who do you see when it's an external problem, e.g. skin infection?
My copy of the OED recognises this problem.
internist U.S.
(ɪnˈtɜːnɪst)
[f. intern(al medicine + -ist.]
A general physician; also, a specialist in internal medicine.
I'm having trouble today; IRTA internest - avian messaging - for tweeting
on?
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Moylan
2019-11-25 11:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Young
The General Practitioners (AmE family physicians) at the practice
that I attend have gone back to the traditional method.
WIWAL they were GPs here, too. Nowadays GPs have pretty much
disappeared and family doctors are usually internists.
Who do you see when it's an external problem, e.g. skin infection?
My copy of the OED recognises this problem.
internist U.S.
(ɪnˈtɜːnɪst)
[f. intern(al medicine + -ist.]
A general physician; also, a specialist in internal medicine.
I'm having trouble today; IRTA internest - avian messaging - for tweeting
on?
The standard for avian messaging is RFC 2549.

<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549>
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-11-25 21:06:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:17:59 GMT, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:41:28 UTC, Peter Young
Post by Peter Young
The General Practitioners (AmE family physicians) at the practice
that I attend have gone back to the traditional method.
WIWAL they were GPs here, too. Nowadays GPs have pretty much
disappeared and family doctors are usually internists.
Who do you see when it's an external problem, e.g. skin infection?
My copy of the OED recognises this problem.
internist U.S.
(ɪnˈtɜːnɪst)
[f. intern(al medicine + -ist.]
A general physician; also, a specialist in internal medicine.
I'm having trouble today; IRTA internest - avian messaging - for
tweeting on?
The standard for avian messaging is RFC 2549.
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549>
Well, of course. I trusted others to know that too.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-25 22:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:17:59 GMT, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 16:41:28 UTC, Peter Young
Post by Peter Young
The General Practitioners (AmE family physicians) at the practice
that I attend have gone back to the traditional method.
WIWAL they were GPs here, too.� Nowadays GPs have pretty much
disappeared and family doctors are usually internists.
Who do you see when it's an external problem, e.g. skin infection?
My copy of the OED recognises this problem.
internist U.S.
(ɪnˈtɜːnɪst)
[f. intern(al medicine + -ist.]
A general physician; also, a specialist in internal medicine.
I'm having trouble today; IRTA internest - avian messaging - for
tweeting on?
The standard for avian messaging is RFC 2549.
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549>
Well, of course. I trusted others to know that too.
I can't speak for other people, but yes, I knew that, and I assumed you
knew it too, or you wouldn't have used the exact phrase "avian messaging".
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-11-28 23:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
The standard for avian messaging is RFC 2549.
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2549>
But that was rejected - as was its predecessor RFC 1149.

/Anders, Denmark.
Tony Cooper
2019-11-24 05:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
WIWAL they were GPs here, too. Nowadays GPs have pretty much
disappeared and family doctors are usually internists.
While we used to say "My GP is...", many of now say "My Primary Care
doctor is ...". Many medical insurance plans require one doctor
specified as the PCP (Primary Care Physician). My co-payment to see
my PCP is $15, but if I see any other doctor my co-pay is $50.

My own PCP is a board certified Family Physician. I could have chosen
an Internist as my PCP, but this doctor was recommended when we moved
to Florida. He's been our PCP since 1972.

While "GP"s have pretty much disappeared, it's really just change in
terminology. The Family Physician and the Internist provide the same
function as the GP did in the sense that they treat any general
disorder rather than specialize in a particular type of disorder.

I think it's the medical schools and teaching hospitals that fostered
this change in terms. "General Practitioner" sounds too old-fashioned
so they changed the term but not the training.

obAue: Does "teaching hospital" travel? In this country, a
physician-to-be attends medical school at a university and then takes
a position at a "teaching hospital" as an intern and then a resident.
After the required number of years (for the specialty) as a resident,
the doctor (he/she is a "M.D." after completing medical school) can
then go into private practice or take a position on staff at a
hospital.

Not all hospitals accept interns. Those that do are called "teaching
hospitals".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
2019-11-24 10:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
obAue: Does "teaching hospital" travel? In this country, a
physician-to-be attends medical school at a university and then
takes a position at a "teaching hospital" as an intern and then a
resident. After the required number of years (for the specialty) as a
resident, the doctor (he/she is a "M.D." after completing medical
school) can then go into private practice or take a position on staff
at a hospital.
That's pretty much correct for Australia. The only important difference
is that the intern doesn't later become an internist or internette.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-23 07:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:31:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by musika
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
The original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Care to expand?
I imagine it should be 118/80
118 systolic/80 diastolic.
Which is in fact almost a textbook example of a "normal" blood pressure
Yes. A week ago my doctor took my blood pressure (as a routine, as I
was seeing him for a flu vaccination) as 12 / 8, which he said was
normal.
Is blood pressure in your area normally given that way? 120 over 80
would be normal here and also be in the normal range. Dropping the 0s
is not done.
When my blood pressure is taken it is always in the low normal area.
Invariably the person taking the blood pressure will make some comment
about how good that is as if I've done something that deserves a
compliment.
It does deserve a compliment. People at risk for a heart attack or stroke,
who through some combination of meds, exercise and diet manage to keep
their blood-work readings in a healthy range, deserve a pat on the back.

bill
RH Draney
2019-11-23 08:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Tony Cooper
When my blood pressure is taken it is always in the low normal area.
Invariably the person taking the blood pressure will make some comment
about how good that is as if I've done something that deserves a
compliment.
It does deserve a compliment. People at risk for a heart attack or stroke,
who through some combination of meds, exercise and diet manage to keep
their blood-work readings in a healthy range, deserve a pat on the back.
With electrified paddles and a warning shout of "CLEAR!"...

(I kid...I'm allowed to make light of heart problems since they
discovered I sometimes display an "atrial flutter")....r
Peter Young
2019-11-23 09:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 06:31:05 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by musika
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
The original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Care to expand?
I imagine it should be 118/80
118 systolic/80 diastolic.
Which is in fact almost a textbook example of a "normal" blood pressure
Yes. A week ago my doctor took my blood pressure (as a routine, as I
was seeing him for a flu vaccination) as 12 / 8, which he said was
normal.
Is blood pressure in your area normally given that way? 120 over 80
would be normal here and also be in the normal range. Dropping the 0s
is not done.
When my blood pressure is taken it is always in the low normal area.
Invariably the person taking the blood pressure will make some comment
about how good that is as if I've done something that deserves a
compliment.
It does deserve a compliment. People at risk for a heart attack or stroke,
who through some combination of meds, exercise and diet manage to keep
their blood-work readings in a healthy range, deserve a pat on the back.
Thanks for that pat on the back!

Peter./
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-23 17:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Is blood pressure in your area normally given that way? 120 over 80
would be normal here and also be in the normal range. Dropping the 0s
is not done.
I am surprised that Trump didn't make good on his MAGA promises by
insisting that his blood pressure is measured in red-blooded inches of
mercury.
--
Sam Plusnet
Janet
2019-11-23 18:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
The original passage was
"The White House said the president's heart rate during his February
exam was 70 beats per minute and his blood pressure was 118.80 mmHg,
which are both healthy levels.
"However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly to
243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity."
I could criticize things in that extract, and the decimal point in
"118.80" is simply wrong
I understand that blood pressure to five significant figures is
unrealistic, but not what is "wrong" with the decimal point.
11880 mmHg is surely even more wrong.
Care to expand?
In Br. E, BP is normally spoken of as " 118 over 80" or written as
118/80

Janet
David Kleinecke
2019-11-20 18:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
I frequently start sentences with "However, ...". Why do you find this
objectionable?
It represents the thought - "I'm about to bring up something that does
not follow from what I wrote in the first sentence" - clearly enough. It
alerts the reader to the change in thought.
At the head of a sentence, it weakens the sentence. It is, one might
say, a fulcrum point between two thoughts. "Most of the members thought
the idea sound. Jane, however, found it awful." If one recasts that as
"However, Jane found it awful," the fulcrum now seems to join two
distinct sentences rather than two parts of the same sentence. Or,
putting it another way, one has constructed a see-saw where the the
fulcrum is at one end, which is a trifle awkward.
Allow me to put in a good word for my own baby - inverse juncture.

"Jane, however, found it awful". is an example of inverse juncture:
However ^ Jane found it awful.
while "However Jane found it awful" is not:
However + Jane found it awful.

It seems that inverse juncture is marked wrt direct juncture. There
aren't too many places to test this because inverse is usually
required where it is used.

I feel that use of the inverse "however" is typical of written
English and direct of spoken.
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-21 15:42:25 UTC
Permalink
On 11/20/19 12:42 AM, Eric Walker wrote:

[snip the main part]
Post by Eric Walker
It's one of those fine points, like replacing "this" with
"that" wherever the sense permits, that makes language just that little
bit tighter and more effective.
...

Incidentally, a few years ago I wrote something for publication in which
I followed a suggestion I've heard: I used "that" things I'd been
talking about and saved "this" for things I was about to talk about. (I
don't know whether that's what you had in mind.) The editors changed
those "that"s to "this"es.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2019-11-22 01:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[snip the main part]
It's one of those fine points, like replacing "this" with "that"
wherever the sense permits, that makes language just that little
bit tighter and more effective.
...
Incidentally, a few years ago I wrote something for publication in
which I followed a suggestion I've heard: I used "that" things I'd
been talking about and saved "this" for things I was about to talk
about. (I don't know whether that's what you had in mind.) The
editors changed those "that"s to "this"es.
It's annoying when you're striving for a particular effect, and an
editor messes it up.

In a research paper I wrote years ago - so long ago that I can no longer
figure out which paper it was - I had a line of mathematics that said a
certain expression was greater than or equal to zero. Intuition said
that it ought to be the other way around, so it was important to make
the point that in this case intuition gave the wrong answer.

An editor used eir intuition to change the line. I changed it back at
the galley proof stage, but the editor changed it again before
publication. I was greatly annoyed that my name appeared on an incorrect
result.

I should balance that with a positive story about an editor. In a much
later paper, on an entirely different topic, I cited someone else's
result that was relevant to what I was doing. The editor discovered an
earlier paper (in French, in a journal I didn't know existed) giving the
same result, and fixed my citation for me.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-22 01:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Jerry Friedman
[snip the main part]
It's one of those fine points, like replacing "this" with "that"
wherever the sense permits, that makes language just that little
bit tighter and more effective.
...
Incidentally, a few years ago I wrote something for publication in
which I followed a suggestion I've heard: I used "that" things I'd
been talking about and saved "this" for things I was about to talk
about. (I don't know whether that's what you had in mind.) The
editors changed those "that"s to "this"es.
It's annoying when you're striving for a particular effect, and an
editor messes it up.
In a research paper I wrote years ago - so long ago that I can no longer
figure out which paper it was - I had a line of mathematics that said a
certain expression was greater than or equal to zero. Intuition said
that it ought to be the other way around, so it was important to make
the point that in this case intuition gave the wrong answer.
An editor used eir intuition to change the line. I changed it back at
the galley proof stage, but the editor changed it again before
publication. I was greatly annoyed that my name appeared on an incorrect
result.
That's a lot more important than my that -> this, which I was just
amused by. The editors did take out two or three problems I was
proud of.
Post by Peter Moylan
I should balance that with a positive story about an editor. In a much
later paper, on an entirely different topic, I cited someone else's
result that was relevant to what I was doing. The editor discovered an
earlier paper (in French, in a journal I didn't know existed) giving the
same result, and fixed my citation for me.
Well, if we're being /fair/, the reviewers fixed quite a few mistakes
I made (and made a smaller number of incorrect "corrections", none of
which got into the final version).
--
Jerry Friedman
RH Draney
2019-11-22 10:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
It's annoying when you're striving for a particular effect, and an
editor messes it up.
In a research paper I wrote years ago - so long ago that I can no longer
figure out which paper it was - I had a line of mathematics that said a
certain expression was greater than or equal to zero. Intuition said
that it ought to be the other way around, so it was important to make
the point that in this case intuition gave the wrong answer.
An editor used eir intuition to change the line. I changed it back at
the galley proof stage, but the editor changed it again before
publication. I was greatly annoyed that my name appeared on an incorrect
result.
That's a lot more important than my that -> this, which I was just
amused by. The editors did take out two or three problems I was
proud of.
Post by Peter Moylan
I should balance that with a positive story about an editor. In a much
later paper, on an entirely different topic, I cited someone else's
result that was relevant to what I was doing. The editor discovered an
earlier paper (in French, in a journal I didn't know existed) giving the
same result, and fixed my citation for me.
Well, if we're being /fair/, the reviewers fixed quite a few mistakes
I made (and made a smaller number of incorrect "corrections", none of
which got into the final version).
I once responded to a request by the hosts of "A Way With Words" for
suggestions of collective nouns for groups of plants (they had offered
as an example "a roberta of flax")...they aired my entry of "an um - er
- uh - something of forget-me-nots" but not what I thought was a more
clever "a swish of pansies"....

On another occasion they asked for Tom Swifties, and neglected my own
invention "'Let me know when the bishop makes his move', said Tom,
obliquely"...they did, however, credit me with one I took pains to
explain was *not* original with me: "'The prisoner is coming down the
stairs now', said the warden, condescendingly"....

You have to watch these radio people every second....r
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-19 18:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly
increased after the check-up and Mr Trump’s weight had risen slightly
to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into obesity.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-forced-deny-trump-111835003.html
Shouldn't there be a comma after 'slightly'?
It might be a bit better with it, but the sentence is a mess as it
stands. It looks like something written in haste, and either not edityed
or edited in the same haste.
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
2. separate clauses with a comma before the conjunction.
3. Try for one idea per sentence.
I once had a copyeditor who tried to change all my sentence-
initial "However"s to something else (I don't remember what).
I restored them.

As for (3), doesn't that make Hemingway his all-time favorite
writer?
Post by Eric Walker
"But it was reported that his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was
increased after the check-up. Moreover, Mr Trump’s weight had risen to
243 pounds, a slight increase but one that pushed him over the line into
obesity."
(I presume that the preceding sentence somehow justifies the "but" as it
presumably did the "however".)
That's actually what those words mean.
Ken Blake
2019-11-19 22:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
Why not?
Lots of people do.
"However" is a word often used to start a sentence.
--
Ken
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-20 07:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
Why not?
Lots of people do.
That's not the best recommendation I've ever heard for a course of
action. Lots of people do crack cocaine, but that doesn't make it a good
idea.

However much I might dislike your second sentence, however, I must
certainly agree with your first. Why not, indeed? However certain Eric
Walker might be of his advice, in fact, I am not at all convinced that
it is well-conceived.

There *are* times when one might wish to start a sentence with
"however". It must be said, however, that I very much prefer to avoid
beginning a sentence with "however" and then being immediately obliged
to follow it with an ugly disambiguating comma. I would prefer to move
the "however" and its comma deeper into the sentence, even at the cost
of introducing yet another comma to allow my "however" to remain aloof
from its preceding clause.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-20 21:36:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Eric Walker
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
Why not?
Lots of people do.
That's not the best recommendation I've ever heard for a course of
action. Lots of people do crack cocaine, but that doesn't make it a good
idea.
How, exactly, is language change like drug addiction?
CDB
2019-11-20 20:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was
reportedly increased after the check-up and Mr Trump’s weight had
risen slightly to 243 pounds, pushing him over the line into
obesity.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-forced-deny-trump-111835003.html
Shouldn't there be a comma after 'slightly'?
Post by Eric Walker
It might be a bit better with it, but the sentence is a mess as it
stands. It looks like something written in haste, and either not
edityed or edited in the same haste.
1. Don't start a sentence with "however".
2. separate clauses with a comma before the conjunction.
3. Try for one idea per sentence.
"But it was reported that his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug
was increased after the check-up. Moreover, Mr Trump’s weight had
risen to 243 pounds, a slight increase but one that pushed him over
the line into obesity."
(I presume that the preceding sentence somehow justifies the "but" as
it presumably did the "however".)
I have just found a rather long garden path that starts with a "However"
not set off by a comma, in a short Quillette essay on progressivism as a
religion.

I kept waiting for the contrasting clause.

'However equally important for the person making the criticism is on
many occasions the burnishing of credentials (also known as
“Pharisaism”), whereby public demonstration of our commitment to the
highest moral standards serves mainly as a means of enhancing or
protecting our reputation (usually at the expense of those being
criticised).'

https://quillette.com/2019/11/20/religious-progressivism/
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-21 00:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
I have just found a rather long garden path that starts with a "However"
not set off by a comma, in a short Quillette essay on progressivism as a
religion.
I kept waiting for the contrasting clause.
'However equally important for the person making the criticism is on
many occasions the burnishing of credentials (also known as
“Pharisaism”), whereby public demonstration of our commitment to the
highest moral standards serves mainly as a means of enhancing or
protecting our reputation (usually at the expense of those being
criticised).'
https://quillette.com/2019/11/20/religious-progressivism/
But "equally important" can't follow that sort of however, so it
must be the 'but' however, however unfortunately punctuated.

(Was that sentence actually written this month?) Is Ms. Q. known
for pretentiousness?)
CDB
2019-11-21 14:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
I have just found a rather long garden path that starts with a
"However" not set off by a comma, in a short Quillette essay on
progressivism as a religion.
I kept waiting for the contrasting clause.
'However equally important for the person making the criticism is
on many occasions the burnishing of credentials (also known as
“Pharisaism”), whereby public demonstration of our commitment to
the highest moral standards serves mainly as a means of enhancing
or protecting our reputation (usually at the expense of those being
criticised).'
https://quillette.com/2019/11/20/religious-progressivism/
But "equally important" can't follow that sort of however, so it
must be the 'but' however, however unfortunately punctuated.
"In whatever way/ to whatever extent equally important" would be
possible interpretations.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Was that sentence actually written this month?) Is Ms. Q. known for
pretentiousness?)
_Quillette_ is a magazine to which readers and others contribute essays
on various socially-relevant topics, usually from a moderate and
sensible conservative point of view. I find it a healthy corrective to
the enforced wokeness of my usual news source, the CBC.

I take it that you didn't bother to follow the link. If there were a
"Ms Q" she would be Claire Lehmann, the Australian woman who founded the
magazine and still (I think) edits it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Lehmann
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-21 14:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
I have just found a rather long garden path that starts with a
"However" not set off by a comma, in a short Quillette essay on
progressivism as a religion.
I kept waiting for the contrasting clause.
'However equally important for the person making the criticism is
on many occasions the burnishing of credentials (also known as
“Pharisaism”), whereby public demonstration of our commitment to
the highest moral standards serves mainly as a means of enhancing
or protecting our reputation (usually at the expense of those being
criticised).'
https://quillette.com/2019/11/20/religious-progressivism/
But "equally important" can't follow that sort of however, so it
must be the 'but' however, however unfortunately punctuated.
"In whatever way/ to whatever extent equally important" would be
possible interpretations.
Well, no, because "equally" can't be compared, any more than "unique" can.
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Was that sentence actually written this month?) Is Ms. Q. known for
pretentiousness?)
_Quillette_ is a magazine to which readers and others contribute essays
on various socially-relevant topics, usually from a moderate and
sensible conservative point of view. I find it a healthy corrective to
the enforced wokeness of my usual news source, the CBC.
Ah. George Will-style pretentiousness. He too is unreadable. (I used to
get *Newsweek*, where his column alternated with Eleanor Clift's, and I
even bought -- and read much of -- his first baseball book.) Presumably
modeled on William F. Buckley pretentiousness. The New Yorker published
some memoirs of his, in which he retailed various racist assumptions
about the servants on his estate, and in which he said very bizarre things
about the harpsichordist Rosalyn Tureck's music-making.
Post by CDB
I take it that you didn't bother to follow the link. If there were a
"Ms Q" she would be Claire Lehmann, the Australian woman who founded the
magazine and still (I think) edits it.
I interpreted the name as a pen name -- "Quill" + "ette" as in "Wonkette,"
a (female) political commentator.
Post by CDB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Lehmann
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-21 14:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
I have just found a rather long garden path that starts with a
"However" not set off by a comma, in a short Quillette essay on
progressivism as a religion.
I kept waiting for the contrasting clause.
'However equally important for the person making the criticism is on
many occasions the burnishing of credentials (also known as
“Pharisaism”), whereby public demonstration of our commitment to the
highest moral standards serves mainly as a means of enhancing or
protecting our reputation (usually at the expense of those being
criticised).'
https://quillette.com/2019/11/20/religious-progressivism/
But "equally important" can't follow that sort of however, so it
must be the 'but' however, however unfortunately punctuated.
"In whatever way/ to whatever extent equally important" would be
possible interpretations.
...

Especially considering how bad the rest of the sentence is. The author
seems to have avoided the singular they by using the singular
third-person we.
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
2019-11-21 19:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by CDB
I have just found a rather long garden path that starts with a
"However" not set off by a comma, in a short Quillette essay on
progressivism as a religion.
I kept waiting for the contrasting clause.
'However equally important for the person making the criticism is on
many occasions the burnishing of credentials (also known as
“Pharisaism”), whereby public demonstration of our commitment to the
highest moral standards serves mainly as a means of enhancing or
protecting our reputation (usually at the expense of those being
criticised).'
https://quillette.com/2019/11/20/religious-progressivism/
But "equally important" can't follow that sort of however, so it
must be the 'but' however, however unfortunately punctuated.
"In whatever way/ to whatever extent equally important" would be
possible interpretations.
...
Especially considering how bad the rest of the sentence is.  The author
seems to have avoided the singular they by using the singular
third-person we.
Yes, there are better-written articles on offer.
Mark Brader
2019-11-19 10:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly increased
after the check-up and Mr Trump's weight had risen slightly to 243 pounds,
pushing him over the line into obesity.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-forced-deny-trump-111835003.html
Shouldn't there be a comma after 'slightly'?
Not there, but there should be one after "check-up". Otherwise it reads
as though the dosage change and the weight increase *both* acted to
"push him over the line".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, ***@vex.net | "Able was I ere I saw Panama."
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-11-19 22:50:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) However, his dosage of a cholesterol-lowering drug was reportedly increased
after the check-up and Mr Trump’s weight had risen slightly to 243 pounds,
pushing him over the line into obesity.
He's taller than I would have thought.

/Anders, Denmark.
Loading...