Discussion:
walk with/ a dhoubt
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2019-11-13 04:16:45 UTC
Permalink
1) That is the box he took and walked away with.
2) That is the box he took and ran with.

Are these sentences grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?

I see no reason why they wouldn't be grammatical, but they sound strange to me.
I want to add an 'it' to the end of both of them, although I think that would
make them ungrammatical!

Gratefully,
Navi
Jack
2019-11-13 05:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) That is the box he took and walked away with.
2) That is the box he took and ran with.
Are these sentences grammatical?
Are they idiomatic?
I see no reason why they wouldn't be grammatical, but they sound strange to me.
I want to add an 'it' to the end of both of them, although I think that would
make them ungrammatical!
They don't want an 'it'.

1) is alright, but 2) overlaps with a figurative use of 'to run
with', meaning 'to accept', 'proceed with'.
'He took option B and ran with it'.

If the sentence focus didn't need to be on identifying the box, 1)
could be 'He t
Eric Walker
2019-11-14 06:02:31 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 23:50:54 -0600, Jack wrote:

[...]
1) is alright...
But "alright" is not all right. Or even a little bit right.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-14 08:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
1) is alright...
But "alright" is not all right. Or even a little bit right.
You're right of course, but "all right" is a bit of an anomaly: why
make its formation different from that of always, altogether etc.? I
suspect that at least some of the people who write "alright" do so
deliberately.
--
athel
Eric Walker
2019-11-14 10:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
1) is alright...
But "alright" is not all right. Or even a little bit right.
You're right of course, but "all right" is a bit of an anomaly: why make
its formation different from that of always, altogether etc.? I suspect
that at least some of the people who write "alright" do so deliberately.
No doubt. So do all malfeasors of any sort.

If "alright" is supposed to be a substitute for "all right", there are
many instances in which it fails badly. A standard example is:

a. Chloe’s test answers were all right.

b. Chloe’s test answers were alright.

Does (b) mean they were all correct, or does it mean that they were more
or less satisfactory? I suppose one could argue that the same holds for
(a), but I daresay of a hundred random folk asked its meaning, something
over 90 would answer that it means the answers were each correct.

A colorable argument can be made that the two forms could co-exist with
somewhat different senses, just as do "altogether"and "all together" or
"already" and "all ready". The closed form, "alright", could be used for
the idea of being in good shape or acceptable, while the paired form
would mean just what its components say: entirely correct (where, I
suppose, "entirely" might often be used metaphorically).
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-14 14:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
1) is alright...
But "alright" is not all right. Or even a little bit right.
You're right of course, but "all right" is a bit of an anomaly: why make
its formation different from that of always, altogether etc.? I suspect
that at least some of the people who write "alright" do so deliberately.
No doubt. So do all malfeasors of any sort.
If "alright" is supposed to be a substitute for "all right", there are
a. Chloe’s test answers were all right.
b. Chloe’s test answers were alright.
Does (b) mean they were all correct, or does it mean that they were more
or less satisfactory? I suppose one could argue that the same holds for
(a), but I daresay of a hundred random folk asked its meaning, something
over 90 would answer that it means the answers were each correct.
A colorable argument can be made that the two forms could co-exist with
somewhat different senses, just as do "altogether"and "all together" or
"already" and "all ready". The closed form, "alright", could be used for
the idea of being in good shape or acceptable, while the paired form
would mean just what its components say: entirely correct (where, I
suppose, "entirely" might often be used metaphorically).
Yes, that's exactly the argument that's made.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jack
2019-11-14 16:57:43 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
1) is alright...
But "alright" is not all right. Or even a little bit right.
You're right of course, but "all right" is a bit of an anomaly: why make
its formation different from that of always, altogether etc.? I suspect
that at least some of the people who write "alright" do so deliberately.
No doubt. So do all malfeasors of any sort.
From legal dictionary:
malfeasor:
convict, delinquent, hoodlum, lawbreaker, recidivist

Is that actually what you meant to say, Eric?
Post by Eric Walker
If "alright" is supposed to be a substitute for "all right", there are
a. Chloe’s test answers were all right.
b. Chloe’s test answers were alright.
Does (b) mean they were all correct, or does it mean that they were more
or less satisfactory? I suppose one could argue that the same holds for
(a), but I daresay of a hundred random folk asked its meaning, something
over 90 would answer that it means the answers were each correct.
A colorable argument can be made that the two forms could co-exist with
somewhat different senses, just as do "altogether"and "all together" or
"already" and "all ready". The closed form, "alright", could be used for
the idea of being in good shape or acceptable, while the paired form
would mean just what its components say: entirely correct (where, I
suppose, "entirely" might often be used metaphori
Eric Walker
2019-11-15 02:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Jack
Post by Eric Walker
No doubt. So do all malfeasors of any sort.
convict, delinquent, hoodlum, lawbreaker, recidivist
Is that actually what you meant to say, Eric?...
No.

The online AHD does not have an entry for "malfeasor", but it does have
one for "malfeasance": 'Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public
official.'

I take it that one who commits malfeasance--even if not a public
official--is a malfeasor. That the word may also have a more specialized
meaning in legal terms of art is not, I feel, material.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Jack
2019-11-15 11:57:55 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 02:50:36 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Jack
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:44:32 -0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Jack
Post by Eric Walker
No doubt. So do all malfeasors of any sort.
convict, delinquent, hoodlum, lawbreaker, recidivist
Is that actually what you meant to say, Eric?...
No.
The online AHD does not have an entry for "malfeasor", but it does have
one for "malfeasance": 'Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public
official.'
I take it that one who commits malfeasance--even if not a public
official--is a malfeasor. That the word may also have a more specialized
meaning in legal terms of art is not, I feel, material.
A

Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-14 14:16:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
1) is alright...
But "alright" is not all right. Or even a little bit right.
You're right of course, but "all right" is a bit of an anomaly: why
make its formation different from that of always, altogether etc.? I
suspect that at least some of the people who write "alright" do so
deliberately.
You'll see just as many "altogether"s when "all together" is intended.
The model is "already," which isn't even parallel.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-13 15:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) That is the box he took and walked away with.
2) That is the box he took and ran with.
Are these sentences grammatical?
sort of
Post by a***@gmail.com
Are they idiomatic?
yes
Post by a***@gmail.com
I see no reason why they wouldn't be grammatical, but they sound strange to me.
I want to add an 'it' to the end of both of them, although I think that would
make them ungrammatical!
needed in many languages, wrong in English
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-13 19:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) That is the box he took and walked away with.
2) That is the box he took and ran with.
Are these sentences grammatical?
sort of
Post by a***@gmail.com
Are they idiomatic?
yes
Post by a***@gmail.com
I see no reason why they wouldn't be grammatical, but they sound strange to me.
I want to add an 'it' to the end of both of them, although I think that would
make them ungrammatical!
needed in many languages, wrong in English
I wouldn't add anything. I'd leave out "he took and". He can
neither walk nor run away with the box unless he takes it first.

bill
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-13 20:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) That is the box he took and walked away with.
2) That is the box he took and ran with.
Are these sentences grammatical?
sort of
Post by a***@gmail.com
Are they idiomatic?
yes
Post by a***@gmail.com
I see no reason why they wouldn't be grammatical, but they sound strange to me.
I want to add an 'it' to the end of both of them, although I think that would
make them ungrammatical!
needed in many languages, wrong in English
I wouldn't add anything. I'd leave out "he took and". He can
neither walk nor run away with the box unless he takes it first.
If you've already established that he wasn't entitled to it. (Or that
he had been given a choice of boxes, as if on *Let's Make a Deal*.)
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-13 20:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) That is the box he took and walked away with.
2) That is the box he took and ran with.
Are these sentences grammatical?
sort of
Post by a***@gmail.com
Are they idiomatic?
yes
Post by a***@gmail.com
I see no reason why they wouldn't be grammatical, but they sound strange to me.
I want to add an 'it' to the end of both of them, although I think that would
make them ungrammatical!
needed in many languages, wrong in English
I wouldn't add anything. I'd leave out "he took and". He can
neither walk nor run away with the box unless he takes it first.
If you've already established that he wasn't entitled to it. (Or that
he had been given a choice of boxes, as if on *Let's Make a Deal*.)
That's context not provided in the original. There is a possibility,
I suppose, that the box wasn't his to take, but that's not established.
I'm not equating "took" with "stole".

bill
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-13 20:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) That is the box he took and walked away with.
2) That is the box he took and ran with.
Are these sentences grammatical?
sort of
Post by a***@gmail.com
Are they idiomatic?
yes
Post by a***@gmail.com
I see no reason why they wouldn't be grammatical, but they sound strange to me.
I want to add an 'it' to the end of both of them, although I think that would
make them ungrammatical!
needed in many languages, wrong in English
I wouldn't add anything. I'd leave out "he took and". He can
neither walk nor run away with the box unless he takes it first.
If you've already established that he wasn't entitled to it. (Or that
he had been given a choice of boxes, as if on *Let's Make a Deal*.)
That's context not provided in the original. There is a possibility,
I suppose, that the box wasn't his to take, but that's not established.
I'm not equating "took" with "stole".
arthur-Navi doesn't do context, so the most obvious interpretation must
prevail. (I find the first one obvious, the second one less so -- are
there more?)
b***@shaw.ca
2019-11-13 23:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) That is the box he took and walked away with.
2) That is the box he took and ran with.
Are these sentences grammatical?
sort of
Post by a***@gmail.com
Are they idiomatic?
yes
Post by a***@gmail.com
I see no reason why they wouldn't be grammatical, but they sound strange to me.
I want to add an 'it' to the end of both of them, although I think that would
make them ungrammatical!
needed in many languages, wrong in English
I wouldn't add anything. I'd leave out "he took and". He can
neither walk nor run away with the box unless he takes it first.
If you've already established that he wasn't entitled to it. (Or that
he had been given a choice of boxes, as if on *Let's Make a Deal*.)
That's context not provided in the original. There is a possibility,
I suppose, that the box wasn't his to take, but that's not established.
I'm not equating "took" with "stole".
arthur-Navi doesn't do context, so the most obvious interpretation must
prevail. (I find the first one obvious, the second one less so -- are
there more?)
I don't feel a need to "interpret" information that's not in the original.
In this case, we don't know why or in what circumstances he took
the box, only that he took it. I think we agreed that both sentences
were more or less grammatical, but not exactly idiomatic, and there
were ways to improve them. Navi/arthur didn't ask us to provide
a back story.

bill
a***@gmail.com
2019-11-14 04:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) That is the box he took and walked away with.
2) That is the box he took and ran with.
Are these sentences grammatical?
sort of
Post by a***@gmail.com
Are they idiomatic?
yes
Post by a***@gmail.com
I see no reason why they wouldn't be grammatical, but they sound strange to me.
I want to add an 'it' to the end of both of them, although I think that would
make them ungrammatical!
needed in many languages, wrong in English
I wouldn't add anything. I'd leave out "he took and". He can
neither walk nor run away with the box unless he takes it first.
If you've already established that he wasn't entitled to it. (Or that
he had been given a choice of boxes, as if on *Let's Make a Deal*.)
That's context not provided in the original. There is a possibility,
I suppose, that the box wasn't his to take, but that's not established.
I'm not equating "took" with "stole".
arthur-Navi doesn't do context, so the most obvious interpretation must
prevail. (I find the first one obvious, the second one less so -- are
there more?)
I don't feel a need to "interpret" information that's not in the original.
In this case, we don't know why or in what circumstances he took
the box, only that he took it. I think we agreed that both sentences
were more or less grammatical, but not exactly idiomatic, and there
were ways to improve them. Navi/arthur didn't ask us to provide
a back story.
bill
Thank you all very much for your valuable feedback,

The meaning I had in mind was the one Peter inferred. He knows me pretty well,
warts and all! But your suggestion, Bill, is useful. I can imagine other
contexts where the 'took and' bit would better be omitted. It is true that
I hadn't provided a clear context. I thought the meaning was obvious, actually,
and it was when I read your reply that I realized it was not. As I said, Peter
knows me well. He managed to figure out the context.

Thanks again,
Respectfully,
Navi
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-14 14:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) That is the box he took and walked away with.
2) That is the box he took and ran with.
Are these sentences grammatical?
sort of
Post by a***@gmail.com
Are they idiomatic?
yes
Post by a***@gmail.com
I see no reason why they wouldn't be grammatical, but they sound strange to me.
I want to add an 'it' to the end of both of them, although I think that would
make them ungrammatical!
needed in many languages, wrong in English
I wouldn't add anything. I'd leave out "he took and". He can
neither walk nor run away with the box unless he takes it first.
If you've already established that he wasn't entitled to it. (Or that
he had been given a choice of boxes, as if on *Let's Make a Deal*.)
That's context not provided in the original. There is a possibility,
I suppose, that the box wasn't his to take, but that's not established.
I'm not equating "took" with "stole".
arthur-Navi doesn't do context, so the most obvious interpretation must
prevail. (I find the first one obvious, the second one less so -- are
there more?)
I don't feel a need to "interpret" information that's not in the original.
In this case, we don't know why or in what circumstances he took
the box, only that he took it. I think we agreed that both sentences
were more or less grammatical, but not exactly idiomatic, and there
were ways to improve them. Navi/arthur didn't ask us to provide
a back story.
Of course he does! With every thread! He doesn't do context, no sentence
is interpretable without context, therefore the reader must supply a
context, whereupon Grice's Maxims come into play.
Loading...