Discussion:
Help choosing a phrase
(too old to reply)
Thomas Johnson
2019-12-03 11:44:24 UTC
Permalink
I was just wondering which, if either, of these two sentence-ending
phrases the writers and editors here like better:

". . . . for the following reasons and others:"

". . . . for the following and other reasons:"

Thanks for the opinions.

Thomas
Tristan Miller
2019-12-03 12:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Johnson
I was just wondering which, if either, of these two sentence-ending
". . . . for the following reasons and others:"
". . . . for the following and other reasons:"
Thanks for the opinions.
Thomas
My personal inclination would be to go with something like "...for the
following reasons (among others):". I'd put the "among others" in
parenthesis as otherwise the colon looks like it is introducing the list
of "other" reasons instead of the list of "following" reasons.

Regards,
Tristan
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tristan Miller
Free Software developer, ferret herder, logologist
https://logological.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Spains Harden
2019-12-03 12:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tristan Miller
Post by Thomas Johnson
I was just wondering which, if either, of these two sentence-ending
". . . . for the following reasons and others:"
". . . . for the following and other reasons:"
Thanks for the opinions.
Thomas
My personal inclination would be to go with something like "...for the
following reasons (among others):". I'd put the "among others" in
parenthesis as otherwise the colon looks like it is introducing the list
of "other" reasons instead of the list of "following" reasons.
"...for reasons that include:".
Tristan Miller
2019-12-03 13:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Greetings.
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Tristan Miller
Post by Thomas Johnson
I was just wondering which, if either, of these two sentence-ending
". . . . for the following reasons and others:"
". . . . for the following and other reasons:"
Thanks for the opinions.
Thomas
My personal inclination would be to go with something like "...for the
following reasons (among others):". I'd put the "among others" in
parenthesis as otherwise the colon looks like it is introducing the list
of "other" reasons instead of the list of "following" reasons.
"...for reasons that include:".
Even better.

Regards,
Tristan
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tristan Miller
Free Software developer, ferret herder, logologist
https://logological.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-03 16:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Johnson
I was just wondering which, if either, of these two sentence-ending
". . . . for the following reasons and others:"
". . . . for the following and other reasons:"
Thanks for the opinions.
"for these and other reasons:"

(I suspect this is cross-posted from somewhere and the questioner won't
see this reply.)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-12-03 16:52:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 08:00:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Thomas Johnson
I was just wondering which, if either, of these two sentence-ending
". . . . for the following reasons and others:"
". . . . for the following and other reasons:"
Thanks for the opinions.
"for these and other reasons:"
(I suspect this is cross-posted from somewhere and the questioner won't
see this reply.)
There is no indication of cross-posting in the message.

The relevant headers in that message are:

From: Thomas Johnson <***@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Help choosing a phrase
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-03 17:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 08:00:42 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Thomas Johnson
I was just wondering which, if either, of these two sentence-ending
". . . . for the following reasons and others:"
". . . . for the following and other reasons:"
Thanks for the opinions.
"for these and other reasons:"
(I suspect this is cross-posted from somewhere and the questioner won't
see this reply.)
There is no indication of cross-posting in the message.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Help choosing a phrase
Interesting! That means that two newbies have shown up from nowhere!
Welcome!
Tristan Miller
2019-12-03 20:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Greetings.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Interesting! That means that two newbies have shown up from nowhere!
Who's the second newbie?

Regards,
Tristan
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tristan Miller
Free Software developer, ferret herder, logologist
https://logological.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-03 21:08:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tristan Miller
Greetings.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Interesting! That means that two newbies have shown up from nowhere!
Who's the second newbie?
The one you replied to -- usually, when we see a new name, it's because
someone is cross-posting from somewhere, and Google Groups doesn't provide
that information any more, so I have to ask.
Tristan Miller
2019-12-04 07:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Greetings.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tristan Miller
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Interesting! That means that two newbies have shown up from nowhere!
Who's the second newbie?
The one you replied to -- usually, when we see a new name, it's because
someone is cross-posting from somewhere, and Google Groups doesn't provide
that information any more, so I have to ask.
I meant, who is the second newbie other than the one I replied to? (Or
to recast with your nomenclature, who is the first newbie?)

Regards,
Tristan
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tristan Miller
Free Software developer, ferret herder, logologist
https://logological.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-04 14:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tristan Miller
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tristan Miller
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Interesting! That means that two newbies have shown up from nowhere!
Who's the second newbie?
The one you replied to -- usually, when we see a new name, it's because
someone is cross-posting from somewhere, and Google Groups doesn't provide
that information any more, so I have to ask.
I meant, who is the second newbie other than the one I replied to? (Or
to recast with your nomenclature, who is the first newbie?)
Your kind self. I infer you do not consider yourself such, but your name
is not familiar to me.
Tristan Miller
2019-12-04 19:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Dear Peter,
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tristan Miller
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tristan Miller
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Interesting! That means that two newbies have shown up from nowhere!
Who's the second newbie?
The one you replied to -- usually, when we see a new name, it's because
someone is cross-posting from somewhere, and Google Groups doesn't provide
that information any more, so I have to ask.
I meant, who is the second newbie other than the one I replied to? (Or
to recast with your nomenclature, who is the first newbie?)
Your kind self. I infer you do not consider yourself such, but your name
is not familiar to me.
I need to work on my memorability, then! I've been a contributor to
this group for nearly 20 years now, though due to other commitments I've
been mostly lurking for the past 10. You and I have corresponded here
before -- or at least, you've participated in some of the threads I've
started. There's an a.u.e. example from back in 2003 at
<news:***@ID-187157.news.dfncis.de> or
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/SnHovY1ViwE/g04kPwUKJpYJ>.
(Same goes for sci.lang, though I think we had more direct
communication there than here.)

Regards,
Tristan
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tristan Miller
Free Software developer, ferret herder, logologist
https://logological.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-04 19:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tristan Miller
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tristan Miller
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tristan Miller
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Interesting! That means that two newbies have shown up from nowhere!
Who's the second newbie?
The one you replied to -- usually, when we see a new name, it's because
someone is cross-posting from somewhere, and Google Groups doesn't provide
that information any more, so I have to ask.
I meant, who is the second newbie other than the one I replied to? (Or
to recast with your nomenclature, who is the first newbie?)
Your kind self. I infer you do not consider yourself such, but your name
is not familiar to me.
I need to work on my memorability, then! I've been a contributor to
this group for nearly 20 years now, though due to other commitments I've
been mostly lurking for the past 10. You and I have corresponded here
I don't think I've been _here_ for 10 years.
Post by Tristan Miller
before -- or at least, you've participated in some of the threads I've
started. There's an a.u.e. example from back in 2003 at
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/SnHovY1ViwE/g04kPwUKJpYJ>.
It may be that that was first cross-posted to sci.lang by Ross Howard,
to whom I replied, in which case I wouldn't have seen a message from you!
Post by Tristan Miller
(Same goes for sci.lang, though I think we had more direct
communication there than here.)
Via cross-post?

I must say I've never before seen a greeting interposed between the
sender's attribution and the list of prior attributions!
Tristan Miller
2019-12-04 20:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Greetings.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tristan Miller
I need to work on my memorability, then! I've been a contributor to
this group for nearly 20 years now, though due to other commitments I've
been mostly lurking for the past 10. You and I have corresponded here
I don't think I've been _here_ for 10 years.
Post by Tristan Miller
before -- or at least, you've participated in some of the threads I've
started. There's an a.u.e. example from back in 2003 at
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/SnHovY1ViwE/g04kPwUKJpYJ>.
It may be that that was first cross-posted to sci.lang by Ross Howard,
to whom I replied, in which case I wouldn't have seen a message from you!
The OP in that thread of mine, as well as your own posts to it, were
cross-posted to sci.lang and alt.usage.english. If you were reading in
either newsgroup then you ought to have seen my original post.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tristan Miller
(Same goes for sci.lang, though I think we had more direct
communication there than here.)
Via cross-post?
Could be; I don't have an exact memory of all the times we've
interacted. I was active on both alt.usage.english and sci.lang; some
of my messages went to one newsgroup or the other, and some were
cross-posted to both (and possibly to other groups as appropriate).

Anyway, nice to have re-established communication with you.

Regards,
Tristan
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tristan Miller
Free Software developer, ferret herder, logologist
https://logological.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-05 08:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tristan Miller
Greetings.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tristan Miller
I need to work on my memorability, then! I've been a contributor to
this group for nearly 20 years now, though due to other commitments I've
been mostly lurking for the past 10. You and I have corresponded here
I don't think I've been _here_ for 10 years.
Post by Tristan Miller
before -- or at least, you've participated in some of the threads I've
started. There's an a.u.e. example from back in 2003 at
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/SnHovY1ViwE/g04kPwUKJpYJ>.
It may be that that was first cross-posted to sci.lang by Ross Howard,
to whom I replied, in which case I wouldn't have seen a message from you!
The OP in that thread of mine, as well as your own posts to it, were
cross-posted to sci.lang and alt.usage.english. If you were reading in
either newsgroup then you ought to have seen my original post.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tristan Miller
(Same goes for sci.lang, though I think we had more direct
communication there than here.)
Via cross-post?
Could be; I don't have an exact memory of all the times we've
interacted. I was active on both alt.usage.english and sci.lang; some
of my messages went to one newsgroup or the other, and some were
cross-posted to both (and possibly to other groups as appropriate).
Anyway, nice to have re-established communication with you.
Your link to an ancient thread was well worth posting. Lots of
interesting stuff there, and some remembered names. Thanks.
--
athel
Katy Jennison
2019-12-05 12:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tristan Miller
Greetings.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I need to work on my memorability, then!  I've been a contributor to
this group for nearly 20 years now, though due to other commitments I've
been mostly lurking for the past 10.  You and I have corresponded here
I don't think I've been _here_ for 10 years.
before -- or at least, you've participated in some of the threads I've
started.  There's an a.u.e. example from back in 2003 at
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/SnHovY1ViwE/g04kPwUKJpYJ>.
It may be that that was first cross-posted to sci.lang by Ross Howard,
to whom I replied, in which case I wouldn't have seen a message from you!
The OP in that thread of mine, as well as your own posts to it, were
cross-posted to sci.lang and alt.usage.english.  If you were reading in
either newsgroup then you ought to have seen my original post.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(Same goes for sci.lang, though I think we had more direct
communication there than here.)
Via cross-post?
Could be; I don't have an exact memory of all the times we've
interacted.  I was active on both alt.usage.english and sci.lang; some
of my messages went to one newsgroup or the other, and some were
cross-posted to both (and possibly to other groups as appropriate).
Anyway, nice to have re-established communication with you.
Your link to an ancient thread was well worth posting. Lots of
interesting stuff there, and some remembered names. Thanks.
Echoed. Some late and sadly lamented RRs, and some who simply
disappeared. Also quite a few who are still here sixteen years later.
--
Katy Jennison
Tristan Miller
2019-12-05 15:02:34 UTC
Permalink
Greetings.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Your link to an ancient thread was well worth posting. Lots of
interesting stuff there, and some remembered names. Thanks.
Echoed.  Some late and sadly lamented RRs, and some who simply
disappeared.  Also quite a few who are still here sixteen years later.
You're both very welcome!

Regards,
Tristan
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tristan Miller
Free Software developer, ferret herder, logologist
https://logological.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Peter Moylan
2019-12-06 03:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tristan Miller
before -- or at least, you've participated in some of the threads I've
started. There's an a.u.e. example from back in 2003 at
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.usage.english/SnHovY1ViwE/g04kPwUKJpYJ>.
Your link to an ancient thread was well worth posting. Lots of
interesting stuff there, and some remembered names. Thanks.
I've just taken a lot at that old thread, and have two things of
interest to report.

1. My newsreader (Thunderbird) doesn't understand the news: pointer, so
I had to go to Google Groups instead. That's a pretty serious
shortcoming in software that's supposed to understand newsgroups.

2. In my younger days I called that dog a dashhound. Not something that
the dictionaries accept, but it was widely used by my acquaintances.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Tristan Miller
2019-12-06 06:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Greetings.
Post by Peter Moylan
I've just taken a lot at that old thread, and have two things of
interest to report.
1. My newsreader (Thunderbird) doesn't understand the news: pointer, so
I had to go to Google Groups instead. That's a pretty serious
shortcoming in software that's supposed to understand newsgroups.
Yes, that's a longstanding bug in Thunderbird (and SeaMonkey). I
reported it nine years ago but it hasn't been fixed yet:
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=617287> I suppose you can
always vote for it (account registration required) if you want to help
the developers assess how important it is to the user community.

Regards,
Tristan
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Tristan Miller
Free Software developer, ferret herder, logologist
https://logological.org/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
b***@shaw.ca
2019-12-06 06:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
2. In my younger days I called that dog a dashhound. Not something that
the dictionaries accept, but it was widely used by my acquaintances.
I've heard it from other people. I knew the Dutch name: dashond.
When I encountered "dachshund" the light bulb went on instantly,
as if a switch had been thrown.

bill

Ken Blake
2019-12-04 21:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tristan Miller
Greetings.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tristan Miller
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Interesting! That means that two newbies have shown up from nowhere!
Who's the second newbie?
The one you replied to -- usually, when we see a new name, it's because
someone is cross-posting from somewhere, and Google Groups doesn't provide
that information any more, so I have to ask.
I meant, who is the second newbie other than the one I replied to? (Or
to recast with your nomenclature, who is the first newbie?)
There's a book I once read that said that the first newbie was called
"Adam."
--
Ken
Spains Harden
2019-12-03 17:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Thomas Johnson
I was just wondering which, if either, of these two sentence-ending
". . . . for the following reasons and others:"
". . . . for the following and other reasons:"
Thanks for the opinions.
"for these and other reasons:"
(I suspect this is cross-posted from somewhere and the questioner won't
see this reply.)
He'll see it "...for reasons that include:".
Thomas Johnson
2019-12-04 15:18:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 09:49:34 -0800 (PST), Spains Harden
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Thomas Johnson
I was just wondering which, if either, of these two sentence-ending
". . . . for the following reasons and others:"
". . . . for the following and other reasons:"
Thanks for the opinions.
"for these and other reasons:"
(I suspect this is cross-posted from somewhere and the questioner won't
see this reply.)
He'll see it "...for reasons that include:".
Thanks very much for that suggestion.

Thomas

BTW, I posted this and my question directly to this group using Agent
Newsreader.
Loading...