Discussion:
Math and Shoelaces
Add Reply
Jack
2020-01-03 17:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 03 Jan 2020 12:09:17 -0500, Tony Cooper
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes me
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
That problem was solved in the 1950s:
https://tinyurl.com/skze4us
but the lace cartel suppressed the invention.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-03 17:31:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes me
But does the above sentence make you wonder about the danger of dangling
modifiers?
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
b***@aol.com
2020-01-03 18:41:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes me
But does the above sentence make you wonder about the danger of dangling
modifiers?
Dangling modifiers are knot a danger to me.
My posts are often laced with grammatical errors, and bringing that to
my attention will not shoe me off. Tongues may wag, and I aglet
anyone to try to bring me to heel.
Not to jump down your throat or vamp up an excuse, but you gave no
quarter and eyelet you know that engaging in a toe-to-toe battle with
you is my sole recourse to counter you. I hope that won't make you
hot under the collar.
Post by b***@aol.com
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-03 18:44:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
But does the above sentence make you wonder about
the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about the
danger of confusing adjectives with prepositions?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
b***@aol.com
2020-01-03 19:06:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
But does the above sentence make you wonder about
the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about the
danger of confusing adjectives with prepositions?
What do adjectives have to do with this? "After tripping over a shoelace
that came untied" is a prepositional phrase and indeed constitutes a
dangling modifier in the sentence. Where does the shoe pinch?
Post by Anton Shepelev
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Quinn C
2020-01-03 19:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
But does the above sentence make you wonder about
the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about the
danger of confusing adjectives with prepositions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
Above all, I think Anton is concerned about the placement of certain
adjectives.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-03 19:30:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
Post by b***@aol.com
"After tripping over a shoelace that came untied"
is a prepositional phrase and indeed constitutes a
dangling modifier in the sentence.
I agree that Tony's sentence has a dangligh modifi-
er, which is a structural defect.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
b***@aol.com
2020-01-03 20:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.

In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
"After tripping over a shoelace that came untied"
is a prepositional phrase and indeed constitutes a
dangling modifier in the sentence.
I agree that Tony's sentence has a dangligh modifi-
er, which is a structural defect.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
David Kleinecke
2020-01-03 20:19:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
"After tripping over a shoelace that came untied"
is a prepositional phrase and indeed constitutes a
dangling modifier in the sentence.
I agree that Tony's sentence has a dangligh modifi-
er, which is a structural defect.
IMO "question above" is a reduced version of "question [that
is posed] above" with lots of possible variants for the words
in []. I would call it a locative and I think school grammar
would call it an adverb.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-04 00:27:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
"After tripping over a shoelace that came untied"
is a prepositional phrase and indeed constitutes a
dangling modifier in the sentence.
I agree that Tony's sentence has a dangligh modifi-
er, which is a structural defect.
IMO "question above" is a reduced version of "question [that
is posed] above" with lots of possible variants for the words
in [].
I agree, but I'm surprised at your suggestion as I seem to remember
you've denied a construction could be explained by ellipsis in
several previous discussions.
Post by David Kleinecke
I would call it a locative and I think school grammar
would call it an adverb.
David Kleinecke
2020-01-04 01:33:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by David Kleinecke
IMO "question above" is a reduced version of "question [that
is posed] above" with lots of possible variants for the words
in [].
I agree, but I'm surprised at your suggestion as I seem to remember
you've denied a construction could be explained by ellipsis in
several previous discussions.
Post by David Kleinecke
I would call it a locative and I think school grammar
would call it an adverb.
I don't condemn all ellipsis - just ellipsis I think is misguided.
The material following the head in a noun phrase is often elided
- for example "that". The form "question that is above" is just
a bit further elided to get "question above". Very common,
probably regular, for the copula to be elided. The "above" in "is
above" fits badly into school grammar and calling it an adjective
is procrustean.

Actually I consider these regular structures with more or less
expanded structure and not ellipsis and I only used ellipsis here
to make the exposition less technical.
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-05 14:28:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
IMO "question above" is a reduced version of
"question [that is posed] above" with lots of pos-
sible variants for the words in [].
Which in turn I consder a reduced version of

that last quetion that is written above this sentence.

where `above' is again a preposition.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Jack
2020-01-03 21:45:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
I believe that's a postpositioned adjective. Heavens above!
Post by b***@aol.com
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
"After tripping over a shoelace that came untied"
is a prepositional phrase and indeed constitutes a
dangling modifier in the sentence.
I agree that Tony's sentence has a dangligh modifi-
er, which is a structural defect.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-03 21:54:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
All of which shows the uselessness of the Latinate notion of "part of
speech" with reference to English grammar. It's about as useful for
English as it is for Chinese.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-03 23:22:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
All of which shows the uselessness of the Latinate notion of "part of
speech" with reference to English grammar. It's about as useful for
English as it is for Chinese.
?? It shows the opposite, IMO, as precisely the discussion has focused
on which part of speech "above" is in an English sentence.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-03 23:41:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
All of which shows the uselessness of the Latinate notion of "part of
speech" with reference to English grammar. It's about as useful for
English as it is for Chinese.
?? It shows the opposite, IMO, as precisely the discussion has focused
on which part of speech "above" is in an English sentence.
An utterly pointless question, unless you have criteria for assigning
words to "parts of speech," and you don't. No one does. Things that go
X Xes X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs, and X Xer Xest
are adjectives; but an awful lot of words don't fall into any of those
inflection patterns and so can't be assigned even to that not-too-useful
scheme.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-04 00:05:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
All of which shows the uselessness of the Latinate notion of "part of
speech" with reference to English grammar. It's about as useful for
English as it is for Chinese.
?? It shows the opposite, IMO, as precisely the discussion has focused
on which part of speech "above" is in an English sentence.
An utterly pointless question, unless you have criteria for assigning
words to "parts of speech," and you don't. No one does.
?? Of course, there are criteria. For instance, in the case at hand,
as a preposition requires an object and an adverb doesn't, "above" can
be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax of the sentence.
And, again, that is _exactly like Latin_, as "super" (Latin for above)
can also be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Things that go
X Xes X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs, and X Xer Xest
are adjectives; but an awful lot of words don't fall into any of those
inflection patterns and so can't be assigned even to that not-too-useful
scheme.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-04 15:08:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
All of which shows the uselessness of the Latinate notion of "part of
speech" with reference to English grammar. It's about as useful for
English as it is for Chinese.
?? It shows the opposite, IMO, as precisely the discussion has focused
on which part of speech "above" is in an English sentence.
An utterly pointless question, unless you have criteria for assigning
words to "parts of speech," and you don't. No one does.
?? Of course, there are criteria. For instance, in the case at hand,
as a preposition requires an object and an adverb doesn't, "above" can
be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax of the sentence.
And, again, that is _exactly like Latin_, as "super" (Latin for above)
can also be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax.
Is that your definition -- "preposition" is 'thing that requires an
object'? Then what's the difference between a preposition and a
transitive verb? Congratulations, you have joined one of the more
outré early variants of Chomskyan linguistics that treated prepositions
the same as verbs.

"Adverb" was rejected as useless by the earliest modern analyses of
English in the 1930s-40s by e.g. C. C. Fries.

English is VERY unlike Latin, and continuing to try to shoehorn English
grammar into the Latin categories is absurd.

And, you offer no definition of "part of speech."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Things that go
X Xes X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs, and X Xer Xest
are adjectives; but an awful lot of words don't fall into any of those
inflection patterns and so can't be assigned even to that not-too-useful
scheme.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-04 16:54:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
All of which shows the uselessness of the Latinate notion of "part of
speech" with reference to English grammar. It's about as useful for
English as it is for Chinese.
?? It shows the opposite, IMO, as precisely the discussion has focused
on which part of speech "above" is in an English sentence.
An utterly pointless question, unless you have criteria for assigning
words to "parts of speech," and you don't. No one does.
?? Of course, there are criteria. For instance, in the case at hand,
as a preposition requires an object and an adverb doesn't, "above" can
be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax of the sentence.
And, again, that is _exactly like Latin_, as "super" (Latin for above)
can also be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax.
Is that your definition -- "preposition" is 'thing that requires an
object'?
Not my definition, only a notable difference between a preposition and
an adverb. Another is that a preposition establishes a connection
between other parts of speech (nouns and pronouns) while an adverb
just modifies a verb or an adjective.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Then what's the difference between a preposition and a
transitive verb? Congratulations, you have joined one of the more
outré early variants of Chomskyan linguistics that treated prepositions
the same as verbs.
"Adverb" was rejected as useless by the earliest modern analyses of
English in the 1930s-40s by e.g. C. C. Fries.
English is VERY unlike Latin, and continuing to try to shoehorn English
grammar into the Latin categories is absurd.
This is the umpteenth time you've made that claim, and yet failed to
give one concrete example of a part of speech that's irrelevant in
English but would be relevant in Latin. I agree that the definitions
of parts of speech may not be fully satisfactory, but my point is that
the exact same objections raised against them for English also apply to Latin.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And, you offer no definition of "part of speech."
Neither do you, though you're the one who brought it up again.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Things that go
X Xes X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs, and X Xer Xest
are adjectives; but an awful lot of words don't fall into any of those
inflection patterns and so can't be assigned even to that not-too-
useful scheme.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-04 18:04:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
English is VERY unlike Latin, and continuing to try to shoehorn English
grammar into the Latin categories is absurd.
This is the umpteenth time you've made that claim, and yet failed to
give one concrete example of a part of speech that's irrelevant in
English but would be relevant in Latin. I agree that the definitions
of parts of speech may not be fully satisfactory, but my point is that
the exact same objections raised against them for English also apply to Latin.
"Adverb." "Substantive." ("Adjective" and "substantive" are the two
varieties of "noun" in Latin grammar.)

"Future tense." "Infinitive." And on and on and on.

The terms were devised for Greek. They were adapted for Latin by scholars
who believed that Greek was as superior to Latin as earlier Europeans
thought Latin was superior to the vernaculars.
Ross
2020-01-05 09:16:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
All of which shows the uselessness of the Latinate notion of "part of
speech" with reference to English grammar. It's about as useful for
English as it is for Chinese.
?? It shows the opposite, IMO, as precisely the discussion has focused
on which part of speech "above" is in an English sentence.
An utterly pointless question, unless you have criteria for assigning
words to "parts of speech," and you don't. No one does.
?? Of course, there are criteria. For instance, in the case at hand,
as a preposition requires an object and an adverb doesn't, "above" can
be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax of the sentence.
And, again, that is _exactly like Latin_, as "super" (Latin for above)
can also be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax.
Is that your definition -- "preposition" is 'thing that requires an
object'? Then what's the difference between a preposition and a
transitive verb? Congratulations, you have joined one of the more
outré early variants of Chomskyan linguistics that treated prepositions
the same as verbs.
"Adverb" was rejected as useless by the earliest modern analyses of
English in the 1930s-40s by e.g. C. C. Fries.
English is VERY unlike Latin, and continuing to try to shoehorn English
grammar into the Latin categories is absurd.
A frequently expressed view with which few would
disagree. But elsewhere above you seem to be suggesting
that _no_ parts-of-speech system is legitimate.
I wonder how you go about describing the grammar
of a language without something like it?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And, you offer no definition of "part of speech."
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Things that go
X Xes X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs, and X Xer Xest
are adjectives; but an awful lot of words don't fall into any of those
inflection patterns and so can't be assigned even to that not-too-useful
scheme.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-05 15:20:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
All of which shows the uselessness of the Latinate notion of "part of
speech" with reference to English grammar. It's about as useful for
English as it is for Chinese.
?? It shows the opposite, IMO, as precisely the discussion has focused
on which part of speech "above" is in an English sentence.
An utterly pointless question, unless you have criteria for assigning
words to "parts of speech," and you don't. No one does.
?? Of course, there are criteria. For instance, in the case at hand,
as a preposition requires an object and an adverb doesn't, "above" can
be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax of the sentence.
And, again, that is _exactly like Latin_, as "super" (Latin for above)
can also be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax.
Is that your definition -- "preposition" is 'thing that requires an
object'? Then what's the difference between a preposition and a
transitive verb? Congratulations, you have joined one of the more
outré early variants of Chomskyan linguistics that treated prepositions
the same as verbs.
"Adverb" was rejected as useless by the earliest modern analyses of
English in the 1930s-40s by e.g. C. C. Fries.
English is VERY unlike Latin, and continuing to try to shoehorn English
grammar into the Latin categories is absurd.
A frequently expressed view with which few would
disagree. But elsewhere above you seem to be suggesting
that _no_ parts-of-speech system is legitimate.
I wonder how you go about describing the grammar
of a language without something like it?
Name a "parts-of-speech system." Fries et al. labeled a large number
of categories. If it doesn't bother you to "mix levels" (then your
Cornell training was for naught), then go ahead and do some by morphology
(as I showed above somewhere) and others by semantics and others by
syntax. Some linguists would find that unsatisfactory.
Ross
2020-01-05 21:44:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Ross
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition, whereas you used it as an adjective.
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a preposition with an
adverb, as in your sentence "Does the question above...", "above" is
an adverb.
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective is listed by
several dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and the Cambridge
Dictionary.
All of which shows the uselessness of the Latinate notion of "part of
speech" with reference to English grammar. It's about as useful for
English as it is for Chinese.
?? It shows the opposite, IMO, as precisely the discussion has focused
on which part of speech "above" is in an English sentence.
An utterly pointless question, unless you have criteria for assigning
words to "parts of speech," and you don't. No one does.
?? Of course, there are criteria. For instance, in the case at hand,
as a preposition requires an object and an adverb doesn't, "above" can
be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax of the sentence.
And, again, that is _exactly like Latin_, as "super" (Latin for above)
can also be a preposition or an adverb depending on the syntax.
Is that your definition -- "preposition" is 'thing that requires an
object'? Then what's the difference between a preposition and a
transitive verb? Congratulations, you have joined one of the more
outré early variants of Chomskyan linguistics that treated prepositions
the same as verbs.
"Adverb" was rejected as useless by the earliest modern analyses of
English in the 1930s-40s by e.g. C. C. Fries.
English is VERY unlike Latin, and continuing to try to shoehorn English
grammar into the Latin categories is absurd.
A frequently expressed view with which few would
disagree. But elsewhere above you seem to be suggesting
that _no_ parts-of-speech system is legitimate.
I wonder how you go about describing the grammar
of a language without something like it?
Name a "parts-of-speech system."
Huh?
Paul Schachter had a good typological survey of them
in the Shopen volumes (Language Typology and Syntactic
Description, 1985).
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Fries et al. labeled a large number of categories.
Parts of speech. He wanted to distance himself from
the Latinizing tradition and make it clear that these
were based on the facts of English, so he didn't use
the term.

If it doesn't bother you to "mix levels" (then your
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Cornell training was for naught),
I got many good things from my Cornell training, but
I had no trouble losing the "mixing levels" taboo.

then go ahead and do some by morphology
Post by Peter T. Daniels
(as I showed above somewhere) and others by semantics and others by syntax. Some linguists would find that unsatisfactory.
Well, too bad. But they can't do grammar without
parts of speech.
David Kleinecke
2020-01-06 00:30:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross
Post by Peter T. Daniels
English is VERY unlike Latin, and continuing to try to shoehorn English
grammar into the Latin categories is absurd.
A frequently expressed view with which few would
disagree. But elsewhere above you seem to be suggesting
that _no_ parts-of-speech system is legitimate.
I wonder how you go about describing the grammar
of a language without something like it?
This doesn't work with many languages but with English where almost
all "words" can appear as either nouns or verbs it is possible to
talk instead of nominal and verbal usages of the same lexical item.
It seems to be unclear whether it is appropriate to also talk
about adjectival usage.
Ross
2020-01-06 01:00:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Ross
Post by Peter T. Daniels
English is VERY unlike Latin, and continuing to try to shoehorn English
grammar into the Latin categories is absurd.
A frequently expressed view with which few would
disagree. But elsewhere above you seem to be suggesting
that _no_ parts-of-speech system is legitimate.
I wonder how you go about describing the grammar
of a language without something like it?
This doesn't work with many languages but with English where almost
all "words" can appear as either nouns or verbs it is possible to
talk instead of nominal and verbal usages of the same lexical item.
It seems to be unclear whether it is appropriate to also talk
about adjectival usage.
I prefer to see those things (both in English and in
Polynesian languages) as distinct (albeit homophonous
and semantically related) lexical items. The
proliferation of the lexical population doesn't bother
me.
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-05 15:09:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
And, you offer no definition of "part of speech."
Anyone can find one a good grammar manual. Nesfield
writes that

The different kinds of words used for different
purposes in a sentence are called parts of
speech. Until we see a word in a sentence, we
are often unable to say to what part of speech it
belongs.

whereas Brown offers no attempt at a formal defintin
but simly remarks that

How can we know to what class, or part of speech,
any word belongs? By learning the definitions of
the ten parts of speech, and then observing how
the word is written, and in what sense it is
used. It is necessary also to observe, so far as
we can, with what other words each particular one
is capable of making sense.

His defintion therefor, comprises the defintions of
the individual parts of speech, which he discusses
in great detail.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-05 15:00:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
An utterly pointless question, unless you have
criteria for assigning words to "parts of speech,"
and you don't. No one does. Things that go X Xes
X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs,
and X Xer Xest are adjectives;
Wrong. Those are only properties of the noun, the
verb, and the adjective. Their definitions are more
fundamental and therefore useful:

+--------------------------------------------------+
| Goold Brown John Nesfield |
| |
|A Noun is the name of A noun is a word used |
|any person, place, or for naming anything. |
|thing, that can be |
|known or mentioned. |
| |
|A Verb is a word that A verb is a word used |
|signifies to be, to for saying something |
|act, or to be acted up- about something else. |
|on |
| |
|An Adjective is a word A word that enlarges |
|added to a noun or pro- the meaning and narrows |
|noun, and generally ex- the application of a |
|presses quality. noun |
+--------------------------------------------------+

You probably need Nesfield's explanations the better
to understand his definitions, but I will not retype
them here. I should, however, like to draw your at-
tention to Nesfiled's mathematically beautiful
defintion of the adjective. Think of it in terms of
information theory or set theory: the more criteria
we supply the fewer become the objects to which they
apply. For example, there are more houses than red
houses.
but an awful lot of words don't fall into any of
those inflection patterns and so can't be assigned
even to that not-too-useful scheme.
Because English has lost, or never had, a complete
and regular system of inflecions. This is another
reason not to rely on them and to preserve what are
still with us, e.g. `whom'.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-05 15:25:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
An utterly pointless question, unless you have
criteria for assigning words to "parts of speech,"
and you don't. No one does. Things that go X Xes
X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs,
and X Xer Xest are adjectives;
Wrong. Those are only properties of the noun, the
verb, and the adjective. Their definitions are more
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Goold Brown John Nesfield |
| |
|A Noun is the name of A noun is a word used |
|any person, place, or for naming anything. |
|thing, that can be |
|known or mentioned. |
| |
|A Verb is a word that A verb is a word used |
|signifies to be, to for saying something |
|act, or to be acted up- about something else. |
|on |
| |
|An Adjective is a word A word that enlarges |
|added to a noun or pro- the meaning and narrows |
|noun, and generally ex- the application of a |
|presses quality. noun |
+--------------------------------------------------+
You probably need Nesfield's explanations the better
to understand his definitions, but I will not retype
them here. I should, however, like to draw your at-
tention to Nesfiled's mathematically beautiful
defintion of the adjective. Think of it in terms of
information theory or set theory: the more criteria
we supply the fewer become the objects to which they
apply. For example, there are more houses than red
houses.
but an awful lot of words don't fall into any of
those inflection patterns and so can't be assigned
even to that not-too-useful scheme.
Because English has lost, or never had, a complete
and regular system of inflecions. This is another
reason not to rely on them and to preserve what are
still with us, e.g. `whom'.
You're saying that semantics is the only valid criterion for determining
parts of speech.

The very example that triggered this absurd discussion, "above," shows
what nonsense the notion is, and why it was abandoned at the very beginning
of scientific linguistics. I have no idea who or when this "Nesfield" is.
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-05 16:57:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You're saying that semantics is the only valid
criterion for determining parts of speech.
I am not so bold to say that because we parse not
words but sentences. Yet semantics is certainly
necessary for parsing.
The very example that triggered this absurd dis-
cussion, "above," shows what nonsense the notion
is, and why it was abandoned at the very beginning
of scientific linguistics.
I fail to see how it does. My argument against the
adjecitval "above" is partially from the meaning of
`above'.
I have no idea who or when this "Nesfield" is.
If you ask anything specific about Nesfield, say so.
Otherwise, what am I to make out of your state-
ment -- that you know about Goold Brown? I qouted
Nesfield from a 1954 reprint of a 1939 revised edi-
tion of a book first published in 1898. What does
it matter whether you know some grammarian or not?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-05 17:41:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
You're saying that semantics is the only valid
criterion for determining parts of speech.
I am not so bold to say that because we parse not
words but sentences. Yet semantics is certainly
necessary for parsing.
The very example that triggered this absurd dis-
cussion, "above," shows what nonsense the notion
is, and why it was abandoned at the very beginning
of scientific linguistics.
I fail to see how it does. My argument against the
adjecitval "above" is partially from the meaning of
`above'.
I have no idea who or when this "Nesfield" is.
If you ask anything specific about Nesfield, say so.
Otherwise, what am I to make out of your state-
ment -- that you know about Goold Brown? I qouted
Nesfield from a 1954 reprint of a 1939 revised edi-
tion of a book first published in 1898. What does
it matter whether you know some grammarian or not?
Of course I know about Goold Brown. He was one of the few pre-modern
people who sometimes had a glimmering of an idea about the scientific
study of language and usually gets a mention in histories of linguistics.

Nesfield had clearly learned nothing from the century or so of
"philology" that had been pursued since Brown's time. Who, BTW,
did the 1939 revision of the book you chose not to name?
Quinn C
2020-01-06 18:48:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
An utterly pointless question, unless you have
criteria for assigning words to "parts of speech,"
and you don't. No one does. Things that go X Xes
X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs,
and X Xer Xest are adjectives;
Wrong. Those are only properties of the noun, the
verb, and the adjective. Their definitions are more
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Goold Brown John Nesfield |
| |
|A Noun is the name of A noun is a word used |
|any person, place, or for naming anything. |
|thing, that can be |
|known or mentioned. |
| |
|A Verb is a word that A verb is a word used |
|signifies to be, to for saying something |
|act, or to be acted up- about something else. |
|on |
| |
|An Adjective is a word A word that enlarges |
|added to a noun or pro- the meaning and narrows |
|noun, and generally ex- the application of a |
|presses quality. noun |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Semantic definitions of parts of speech are generally considered
impractical by linguists these days.

Morphological definitions, that PTD quoted, are more useful, depending
on the language. English is a bad candidate for relying on those alone.

The definitions preferred by most linguists, as far as I've seen, are
syntactic definitions, or "duck typing", if I may borrow this word from
the realm of programming languages: classifying words by their behavior
in a sentence or utterance, and especially grouping together words that
are interchangeable in many contexts. Those are also the foundation of
all phrase-structure grammars.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
Ross
2020-01-06 21:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anton Shepelev
An utterly pointless question, unless you have
criteria for assigning words to "parts of speech,"
and you don't. No one does. Things that go X Xes
X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs,
and X Xer Xest are adjectives;
Wrong. Those are only properties of the noun, the
verb, and the adjective. Their definitions are more
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Goold Brown John Nesfield |
| |
|A Noun is the name of A noun is a word used |
|any person, place, or for naming anything. |
|thing, that can be |
|known or mentioned. |
| |
|A Verb is a word that A verb is a word used |
|signifies to be, to for saying something |
|act, or to be acted up- about something else. |
|on |
| |
|An Adjective is a word A word that enlarges |
|added to a noun or pro- the meaning and narrows |
|noun, and generally ex- the application of a |
|presses quality. noun |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Semantic definitions of parts of speech are generally considered
impractical by linguists these days.
Not to say totally unworkable, as they depend on prior
understandings of terms like "name", "thing", "act"
and "quality", which often turn out to be based on
parts of speech classification. Something like
circularity ensues.
Post by Quinn C
Morphological definitions, that PTD quoted, are more useful, depending
on the language. English is a bad candidate for relying on those alone.
The definitions preferred by most linguists, as far as I've seen, are
syntactic definitions, or "duck typing", if I may borrow this word from
the realm of programming languages: classifying words by their behavior
in a sentence or utterance, and especially grouping together words that
are interchangeable in many contexts. Those are also the foundation of
all phrase-structure grammars.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-06 21:25:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ross
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anton Shepelev
An utterly pointless question, unless you have
criteria for assigning words to "parts of speech,"
and you don't. No one does. Things that go X Xes
X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs,
and X Xer Xest are adjectives;
Wrong. Those are only properties of the noun, the
verb, and the adjective. Their definitions are more
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Goold Brown John Nesfield |
| |
|A Noun is the name of A noun is a word used |
|any person, place, or for naming anything. |
|thing, that can be |
|known or mentioned. |
| |
|A Verb is a word that A verb is a word used |
|signifies to be, to for saying something |
|act, or to be acted up- about something else. |
|on |
| |
|An Adjective is a word A word that enlarges |
|added to a noun or pro- the meaning and narrows |
|noun, and generally ex- the application of a |
|presses quality. noun |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Semantic definitions of parts of speech are generally considered
impractical by linguists these days.
Not to say totally unworkable, as they depend on prior
understandings of terms like "name", "thing", "act"
and "quality", which often turn out to be based on
parts of speech classification. Something like
circularity ensues.
Why am I reminded by Darwin's comment on Charles Janet: "As for M.
Janet, he is a metaphysician, and such gentlemen are so acute that I
think they often misunderstand common folk"? Common folk know what they
mean by "verb", "noun", "adjective" etc. It's only experts in
linguistics who get confused.

Or we can recall Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's saying that he
could not use words to describe pornography but "I know it when I see
it." I feel that way about verbs and nouns, and I hazard a guess that
Anton does as well.
Post by Ross
Post by Quinn C
Morphological definitions, that PTD quoted, are more useful, depending
on the language. English is a bad candidate for relying on those alone.
The definitions preferred by most linguists, as far as I've seen, are
syntactic definitions, or "duck typing", if I may borrow this word from
the realm of programming languages: classifying words by their behavior
in a sentence or utterance, and especially grouping together words that
are interchangeable in many contexts. Those are also the foundation of
all phrase-structure grammars.
--
athel
David Kleinecke
2020-01-06 21:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Ross
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anton Shepelev
An utterly pointless question, unless you have
criteria for assigning words to "parts of speech,"
and you don't. No one does. Things that go X Xes
X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs,
and X Xer Xest are adjectives;
Wrong. Those are only properties of the noun, the
verb, and the adjective. Their definitions are more
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Goold Brown John Nesfield |
| |
|A Noun is the name of A noun is a word used |
|any person, place, or for naming anything. |
|thing, that can be |
|known or mentioned. |
| |
|A Verb is a word that A verb is a word used |
|signifies to be, to for saying something |
|act, or to be acted up- about something else. |
|on |
| |
|An Adjective is a word A word that enlarges |
|added to a noun or pro- the meaning and narrows |
|noun, and generally ex- the application of a |
|presses quality. noun |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Semantic definitions of parts of speech are generally considered
impractical by linguists these days.
Not to say totally unworkable, as they depend on prior
understandings of terms like "name", "thing", "act"
and "quality", which often turn out to be based on
parts of speech classification. Something like
circularity ensues.
Why am I reminded by Darwin's comment on Charles Janet: "As for M.
Janet, he is a metaphysician, and such gentlemen are so acute that I
think they often misunderstand common folk"? Common folk know what they
mean by "verb", "noun", "adjective" etc. It's only experts in
linguistics who get confused.
Or we can recall Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's saying that he
could not use words to describe pornography but "I know it when I see
it." I feel that way about verbs and nouns, and I hazard a guess that
Anton does as well.
The problems arise when one tries to be precise. Common sense suffices
for most utterances. The edge cases cause difficulties. If you need an
example: Is "The more, the merrier." a grammatical sentence?

The minimalist program has gotten into severe difficulties this way.
By espousing Chomskian Universal Grammar they are obligated to make
room for every quirk of grammar found in any language. Hence their
assumed database is mostly a large pile of inconsistent edge cases.
Ross
2020-01-06 22:15:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Ross
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anton Shepelev
An utterly pointless question, unless you have
criteria for assigning words to "parts of speech,"
and you don't. No one does. Things that go X Xes
X's Xes' are nouns, X Xs Xed Xing Xen are verbs,
and X Xer Xest are adjectives;
Wrong. Those are only properties of the noun, the
verb, and the adjective. Their definitions are more
+--------------------------------------------------+
| Goold Brown John Nesfield |
| |
|A Noun is the name of A noun is a word used |
|any person, place, or for naming anything. |
|thing, that can be |
|known or mentioned. |
| |
|A Verb is a word that A verb is a word used |
|signifies to be, to for saying something |
|act, or to be acted up- about something else. |
|on |
| |
|An Adjective is a word A word that enlarges |
|added to a noun or pro- the meaning and narrows |
|noun, and generally ex- the application of a |
|presses quality. noun |
+--------------------------------------------------+
Semantic definitions of parts of speech are generally considered
impractical by linguists these days.
Not to say totally unworkable, as they depend on prior
understandings of terms like "name", "thing", "act"
and "quality", which often turn out to be based on
parts of speech classification. Something like
circularity ensues.
Why am I reminded by Darwin's comment on Charles Janet: "As for M.
Janet, he is a metaphysician, and such gentlemen are so acute that I
think they often misunderstand common folk"? Common folk know what they
mean by "verb", "noun", "adjective" etc. It's only experts in
linguistics who get confused.
No, the experts in linguistics are not confused. The
confusing "definitions" cited by Anton above were
made up centuries ago by Latinizing grammarians.
I suspect many "common folk" do not know what "noun",
"verb", "adjective" etc. mean. But they do, in some
sense, know those categories, since they are part of
the grammar of the language they speak. Those who were paying attention in school were probably given enough examples to connect the terms with the language they
already knew, so they can apply them correctly.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Or we can recall Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's saying that he
could not use words to describe pornography but "I know it when I see
it." I feel that way about verbs and nouns, and I hazard a guess that
Anton does as well.
That's fine, if (like the judge) you're content not to
examine the basis of your knowledge.
Anton, however, proposed the above definitions as
"fundamental" and "useful".
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-06 23:27:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Ross
Post by Quinn C
Semantic definitions of parts of speech are generally considered
impractical by linguists these days.
Not to say totally unworkable, as they depend on prior
understandings of terms like "name", "thing", "act"
and "quality", which often turn out to be based on
parts of speech classification. Something like
circularity ensues.
Why am I reminded by Darwin's comment on Charles Janet: "As for M.
Ooh, another Janet! Was he good at commas?
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Janet, he is a metaphysician, and such gentlemen are so acute that I
think they often misunderstand common folk"? Common folk know what they
mean by "verb", "noun", "adjective" etc. It's only experts in
linguistics who get confused.
Could the same possibly be said about terminology in, say, enzyme
kinetics? Or, cell biology? What do you think of Madeleine L'Engle's
use of "mitochondria"? (I _think_ it goes all the way back to *Wrinkle*,
but it may have turned up first in one of the later novels, all of which
she eventually worked into a single universe.)
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Or we can recall Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's saying that he
could not use words to describe pornography but "I know it when I see
it." I feel that way about verbs and nouns, and I hazard a guess that
Anton does as well.
Leading to much confusion.
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-05 14:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I see, but it seems you in turn are confusing a
preposition with an adverb, as in your sentence
"Does the question above...", "above" is an ad-
verb.
Indeed, but the disticntion is vague. Say "above
this paragraph" and it becomes a preposition. The
same transformation is observed with many other
prepositions, e.g. "within" or "within oneself". Is
it not, therefore, better to consider such adverbs
as prepositions with the related noun phrase elided?
And elided it is: the stars above, the enemy within,
it is cold outside...
In any event, the use of "above" as an adjective
is listed by several dictionaries, including Mer-
riam-Webster and the Cambridge Dictionary.
True, but I find it ugly as sin on Sunday, and it
meseems not without a reason, for the adjectival us-
age is relatively recent in English. Similarly, I
have hated split infinitives since school, although
I did not know then they were a dubious construc-
tion. Even some recent and contemporary writ-
ers -- such as Thomas Ligotti and Robert Aick-
man -- diligently avoid them.

That has taught me to trust my taste.

Futhermore, I dare make a conjecture that the first
adjectival usages of `above' and `below' are due to
people without either a good literary education or a
native command of British or American English.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Paul Carmichael
2020-01-05 14:32:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
True, but I find it ugly as sin on Sunday, and it
meseems not without a reason, for the adjectival us-
age is relatively recent in English. Similarly, I
have hated split infinitives since school, although
I did not know then they were a dubious construc-
tion. Even some recent and contemporary writ-
ers -- such as Thomas Ligotti and Robert Aick-
man -- diligently avoid them.
It's a bit like saying that a German verb without "zu" is some sort of abomination.

A verb without a preposition is still a verb. There is no such thing as a split infinitive.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-05 15:21:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
True, but I find it ugly as sin on Sunday, and it
meseems not without a reason [...]
Omit the "it".
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-03 21:52:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition,
It can be (probably most often),
Post by Anton Shepelev
whereas you used it as an adjective.
as is perfectly normal,

and so is its use as an adverb.
Quinn C
2020-01-03 22:48:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition,
It can be (probably most often),
Post by Anton Shepelev
whereas you used it as an adjective.
as is perfectly normal,
and so is its use as an adverb.
But "the above sentence" is slightly marked compared to "the sentence
above", isn't it?

However, there's no garden-pathing because of the determiner -
the+Adj+N is much more likely than the+Prep+N. That's what Anton might
want to practice.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-03 23:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition,
It can be (probably most often),
Post by Anton Shepelev
whereas you used it as an adjective.
as is perfectly normal,
and so is its use as an adverb.
But "the above sentence" is slightly marked compared to "the sentence
above", isn't it?
Equally marked: "above" is jargon to sound "scientific." "That sentence"
would have been perfectly clear.
Post by Quinn C
However, there's no garden-pathing because of the determiner -
the+Adj+N is much more likely than the+Prep+N. That's what Anton might
want to practice.
Can you come up with a credible sentence with the+Prep+ ? (In English.
It's normal in German.)
Quinn C
2020-01-04 02:02:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition,
It can be (probably most often),
Post by Anton Shepelev
whereas you used it as an adjective.
as is perfectly normal,
and so is its use as an adverb.
But "the above sentence" is slightly marked compared to "the sentence
above", isn't it?
Equally marked: "above" is jargon to sound "scientific." "That sentence"
would have been perfectly clear.
Scientific? I'd say it's common in all forms of formal writing, e.g.
business writing.

My point was that the position before the noun is *grammatically*
marked compared to the one after the noun.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
However, there's no garden-pathing because of the determiner -
the+Adj+N is much more likely than the+Prep+N. That's what Anton might
want to practice.
Can you come up with a credible sentence with the+Prep+ ? (In English.
It's normal in German.)
The without doubt best film ever.
The above average size of the box ... (could have a hyphen, but often
hasn't.)

While more common in German, this is the only construction that comes
to mind there as well: when the PP is (part of) an attribute to the
noun. It's easier in German because you can front participial phrases
to give something like "the without sugar sweetened drink."
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Tony Cooper
2020-01-04 05:50:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I am fascinated by the number of responses to my original post.
Twenty-seven posts so far ranging from dinging my dangling modifier to
bickering over parts of speech. Two (I think) posts dealing with the
actual subject matter of the original post, but nothing about the math
involved.

(I guess it would be "maths" because two shoes are involved.)
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Paul Carmichael
2020-01-04 11:56:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
I am fascinated by the number of responses to my original post.
Twenty-seven posts so far ranging from dinging my dangling modifier to
bickering over parts of speech. Two (I think) posts dealing with the
actual subject matter of the original post, but nothing about the math
involved.
(I guess it would be "maths" because two shoes are involved.)
In BrE there is no such word as math singular.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-04 15:15:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
I am fascinated by the number of responses to my original post.
Almost none of them respond "to [your] original post."
Post by Tony Cooper
Twenty-seven posts so far ranging from dinging my dangling modifier to
bickering over parts of speech. Two (I think) posts dealing with the
actual subject matter of the original post, but nothing about the math
involved.
Why would comment be warranted? Either the link you provided gives
legitimate knot theory or it doesn't.
Post by Tony Cooper
(I guess it would be "maths" because two shoes are involved.)
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-05 13:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I am fascinated by the number of responses to my
original post. Twenty-seven posts so far ranging
from dinging my dangling modifier to bickering
over parts of speech. Two (I think) posts dealing
with the actual subject matter of the original
post, but nothing about the math involved.
Because too difficult. Why is it mathematics in-
stead of physics? Should have to do with effective
employment of friction.

I had enough trouble with the finger-decoupling
problem in topology: suppose one interlinks the
rigns formed by the thumb and index finger of each
hand. Is there are an isotopia that unlinks them?

The solution is excellently illustrated by Soviet
and Russin mathematicial Anatoly Fomenko:

1. Loading Image...
2. Loading Image...
3. Loading Image...
4. Loading Image...

-- supposed crackpot and one of the authors of "new
chronology".
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
s***@gmail.com
2020-01-07 00:58:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
I am fascinated by the number of responses to my
original post. Twenty-seven posts so far ranging
from dinging my dangling modifier to bickering
over parts of speech. Two (I think) posts dealing
with the actual subject matter of the original
post, but nothing about the math involved.
Because too difficult. Why is it mathematics in-
stead of physics? Should have to do with effective
employment of friction.
And the effective employment of friction
can be modeled through the number of crossings, etc.

The math is valuable if it can be used to predict new knots
that we don't yet have empirical descriptions.

Some time ago, we had a thread about tying neckties,
and that was around the time a study was published
that by looking at the mathematical properties
came up with several knots that were properly balanced.
(The four-in-hand is not balanced,
but the Windsor is IIRC the classical example of one that is.
I don't remember if the half-Windsor is balanced.)

I might eventually track down the old thread,
but not just now.

/dps
Tak To
2020-01-07 02:13:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
I am fascinated by the number of responses to my
original post. Twenty-seven posts so far ranging
from dinging my dangling modifier to bickering
over parts of speech. Two (I think) posts dealing
with the actual subject matter of the original
post, but nothing about the math involved.
Because too difficult. Why is it mathematics in-
stead of physics? Should have to do with effective
employment of friction.
It is about a "mathematics model", and the mathematics
is apparently not purely topological in the way traditional
knot theory is.
Post by Anton Shepelev
I had enough trouble with the finger-decoupling
problem in topology: suppose one interlinks the
rigns formed by the thumb and index finger of each
hand. Is there are an isotopia that unlinks them?
The solution is excellently illustrated by Soviet
1. https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/yarcprofi/20338482/48906/original.jpg
2. https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/yarcprofi/20338482/49253/original.jpg
3. https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/yarcprofi/20338482/49447/original.jpg
4. https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/yarcprofi/20338482/49856/original.jpg
Nice!
Post by Anton Shepelev
-- supposed crackpot and one of the authors of "new
chronology".
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-07 20:07:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
I am fascinated by the number of responses to my
original post. Twenty-seven posts so far ranging
from dinging my dangling modifier to bickering
over parts of speech. Two (I think) posts dealing
with the actual subject matter of the original
post, but nothing about the math involved.
Because too difficult. Why is it mathematics in-
stead of physics? Should have to do with effective
employment of friction.
Eh, the mathematical subject of 'knot theory' is topology,
and it has nothing to do with friction,
and very little with real life knots,

Jan
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-07 20:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Eh, the mathematical subject of 'knot theory' is topology,
and it has nothing to do with friction, and very little
with real life knots,
Is it not fricion that holds a know tied? Is it not physics
that studies friction?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Quinn C
2020-01-07 22:50:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by J. J. Lodder
Eh, the mathematical subject of 'knot theory' is topology,
and it has nothing to do with friction, and very little
with real life knots,
Is it not fricion that holds a know tied?
Not if the strings have a diameter of 0.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
pensive hamster
2020-01-08 00:41:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by J. J. Lodder
Eh, the mathematical subject of 'knot theory' is topology,
and it has nothing to do with friction, and very little
with real life knots,
Is it not fricion that holds a know tied?
Not if the strings have a diameter of 0.
Is it possible to tie knots in strings which have a diameter of 0?

How would you know if you have succeeded or not, or even
what kind of knot you might have tied?

Wouldn't a string of diameter 0 lack any frictional surface, and
wouldn't it therefore be infinitely slippery, and therefore not
a knot?
s***@gmail.com
2020-01-08 03:15:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Quinn C
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by J. J. Lodder
Eh, the mathematical subject of 'knot theory' is topology,
and it has nothing to do with friction, and very little
with real life knots,
Is it not fricion that holds a know tied?
Not if the strings have a diameter of 0.
Is it possible to tie knots in strings which have a diameter of 0?
How would you know if you have succeeded or not, or even
what kind of knot you might have tied?
Wouldn't a string of diameter 0 lack any frictional surface, and
wouldn't it therefore be infinitely slippery, and therefore not
a knot?
Works just fine to tether a spherical cow.

/dps
s***@gmail.com
2020-01-08 03:31:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Anton Shepelev
I am fascinated by the number of responses to my
original post. Twenty-seven posts so far ranging
from dinging my dangling modifier to bickering
over parts of speech. Two (I think) posts dealing
with the actual subject matter of the original
post, but nothing about the math involved.
Because too difficult. Why is it mathematics in-
stead of physics? Should have to do with effective
employment of friction.
Eh, the mathematical subject of 'knot theory' is topology,
and it has nothing to do with friction,
and very little with real life knots,
Except in the article that stmulated this thread.

And while physicists keep grabbing abstract math to use
on the problems they deal with (QED and groups, frex),
it seems physicists are also sending back tools to mathematicians.

<URL:https://www.quantamagazine.org/neutrinos-lead-to-unexpected-discovery-in-basic-math-20191113/>
<URL:https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-chemist-shines-light-on-a-surprising-prime-number-pattern-20180514/>
(okay, not a physcist)
<URL:https://www.quantamagazine.org/secret-link-uncovered-between-pure-math-and-physics-20171201/>

Is there any mathematical subject that has no use "in real life"? Maybe.

/dps

Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-04 15:13:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition,
It can be (probably most often),
Post by Anton Shepelev
whereas you used it as an adjective.
as is perfectly normal,
and so is its use as an adverb.
But "the above sentence" is slightly marked compared to "the sentence
above", isn't it?
Equally marked: "above" is jargon to sound "scientific." "That sentence"
would have been perfectly clear.
Scientific? I'd say it's common in all forms of formal writing, e.g.
business writing.
Businesspeople like to think they're scientific. The operative word
is "jargon."
Post by Quinn C
My point was that the position before the noun is *grammatically*
marked compared to the one after the noun.
English has few postposed modifiers like "galore."
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
However, there's no garden-pathing because of the determiner -
the+Adj+N is much more likely than the+Prep+N. That's what Anton might
want to practice.
Can you come up with a credible sentence with the+Prep+ ? (In English.
It's normal in German.)
The without doubt best film ever.
German.
Post by Quinn C
The above average size of the box ... (could have a hyphen, but often
hasn't.)
Not a preposition. (Look at bebe...'s definition of preposition. "Average"
isn't a noun.) Needs hyphen.
Post by Quinn C
While more common in German, this is the only construction that comes
to mind there as well: when the PP is (part of) an attribute to the
noun. It's easier in German because you can front participial phrases
to give something like "the without sugar sweetened drink."
"Can"? Is there an alternative?
Quinn C
2020-01-06 22:41:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition,
It can be (probably most often),
Post by Anton Shepelev
whereas you used it as an adjective.
as is perfectly normal,
and so is its use as an adverb.
But "the above sentence" is slightly marked compared to "the sentence
above", isn't it?
Equally marked: "above" is jargon to sound "scientific." "That sentence"
would have been perfectly clear.
Scientific? I'd say it's common in all forms of formal writing, e.g.
business writing.
Businesspeople like to think they're scientific.
No they don't. Certainly not in business correspondence.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The operative word
is "jargon."
I still think "formal writing" works.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
My point was that the position before the noun is *grammatically*
marked compared to the one after the noun.
English has few postposed modifiers like "galore."
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
However, there's no garden-pathing because of the determiner -
the+Adj+N is much more likely than the+Prep+N. That's what Anton might
want to practice.
Can you come up with a credible sentence with the+Prep+ ? (In English.
It's normal in German.)
The without doubt best film ever.
German.
Dismissing data that don't fit your hypothesis doesn't make it
stronger, it makes you a cheat.

I notice this construction as unusual in English, but it's not
extremely rare. I can't think of other examples than "without doubt"
right now.

Of course, those belong in the spoken language. In writing, most people
would add punctuation, something like:

The (without doubt) best film ...
The, without doubt, best film ...

But in spoken language those aren't there.

If Anton only consumes written English, it may not be important.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
The above average size of the box ... (could have a hyphen, but often
hasn't.)
Not a preposition. (Look at bebe...'s definition of preposition. "Average"
isn't a noun.)
Maybe. I see English speakers categorize a lot of things as adjective
that I consider nouns.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Needs hyphen.
But often hasn't, as I already said. We don't get any data if you go
all prescriptivist on me!
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
While more common in German, this is the only construction that comes
to mind there as well: when the PP is (part of) an attribute to the
noun. It's easier in German because you can front participial phrases
to give something like "the without sugar sweetened drink."
"Can"? Is there an alternative?
The alternative is a relative sentence.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-06 23:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition,
It can be (probably most often),
Post by Anton Shepelev
whereas you used it as an adjective.
as is perfectly normal,
and so is its use as an adverb.
But "the above sentence" is slightly marked compared to "the sentence
above", isn't it?
Equally marked: "above" is jargon to sound "scientific." "That sentence"
would have been perfectly clear.
Scientific? I'd say it's common in all forms of formal writing, e.g.
business writing.
Businesspeople like to think they're scientific.
No they don't. Certainly not in business correspondence.
Of course they do. Why do you suppose they invented "business schools"
that give people like Trump "degrees"?
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The operative word
is "jargon."
I still think "formal writing" works.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
My point was that the position before the noun is *grammatically*
marked compared to the one after the noun.
English has few postposed modifiers like "galore."
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
However, there's no garden-pathing because of the determiner -
the+Adj+N is much more likely than the+Prep+N. That's what Anton might
want to practice.
Can you come up with a credible sentence with the+Prep+ ? (In English.
It's normal in German.)
The without doubt best film ever.
German.
Dismissing data that don't fit your hypothesis doesn't make it
stronger, it makes you a cheat.
I notice this construction as unusual in English, but it's not
extremely rare. I can't think of other examples than "without doubt"
right now.
Never mind what you can think of, can you find legitimate examples in
the immense corpora that are available for searching?
Post by Quinn C
Of course, those belong in the spoken language. In writing, most people
The (without doubt) best film ...
The, without doubt, best film ...
But in spoken language those aren't there.
Of course they are. Punctuation was invented to help with intonation
and pauses and such.
Post by Quinn C
If Anton only consumes written English, it may not be important.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
The above average size of the box ... (could have a hyphen, but often
hasn't.)
Not a preposition. (Look at bebe...'s definition of preposition. "Average"
isn't a noun.)
Maybe. I see English speakers categorize a lot of things as adjective
that I consider nouns.
Your German intuitions don't help with English.
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Needs hyphen.
But often hasn't, as I already said. We don't get any data if you go
all prescriptivist on me!
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
While more common in German, this is the only construction that comes
to mind there as well: when the PP is (part of) an attribute to the
noun. It's easier in German because you can front participial phrases
to give something like "the without sugar sweetened drink."
"Can"? Is there an alternative?
The alternative is a relative sentence.
Quite rare. If they were used a lot, it would be a lot easier to translate
German into English.
Quinn C
2020-01-06 23:58:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition,
It can be (probably most often),
Post by Anton Shepelev
whereas you used it as an adjective.
as is perfectly normal,
and so is its use as an adverb.
But "the above sentence" is slightly marked compared to "the sentence
above", isn't it?
Equally marked: "above" is jargon to sound "scientific." "That sentence"
would have been perfectly clear.
Scientific? I'd say it's common in all forms of formal writing, e.g.
business writing.
Businesspeople like to think they're scientific.
No they don't. Certainly not in business correspondence.
Of course they do. Why do you suppose they invented "business schools"
that give people like Trump "degrees"?
Nonsense. This is the domain of clerks. Government, too.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The operative word
is "jargon."
I still think "formal writing" works.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
My point was that the position before the noun is *grammatically*
marked compared to the one after the noun.
English has few postposed modifiers like "galore."
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
However, there's no garden-pathing because of the determiner -
the+Adj+N is much more likely than the+Prep+N. That's what Anton might
want to practice.
Can you come up with a credible sentence with the+Prep+ ? (In English.
It's normal in German.)
The without doubt best film ever.
German.
Dismissing data that don't fit your hypothesis doesn't make it
stronger, it makes you a cheat.
I notice this construction as unusual in English, but it's not
extremely rare. I can't think of other examples than "without doubt"
right now.
Never mind what you can think of, can you find legitimate examples in
the immense corpora that are available for searching?
If I could think of examples I could use Google. Corpora search (by
part of speech!) takes more time.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Of course, those belong in the spoken language. In writing, most people
The (without doubt) best film ...
The, without doubt, best film ...
But in spoken language those aren't there.
Of course they are. Punctuation was invented to help with intonation
and pauses and such.
So? The word "without" is still following the word "the".
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
If Anton only consumes written English, it may not be important.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
The above average size of the box ... (could have a hyphen, but often
hasn't.)
Not a preposition. (Look at bebe...'s definition of preposition. "Average"
isn't a noun.)
Maybe. I see English speakers categorize a lot of things as adjective
that I consider nouns.
Your German intuitions don't help with English.
Your weirdo intuitions are often wrong as well, prick.

I remember from my early days in this group that some people explained
all compound first constituents as "adjective", which I found quite
strange. I concluded that they were missing the concept of "attribute".
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 13:17:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
I remember from my early days in this group that some people explained
all compound first constituents as "adjective", which I found quite
strange. I concluded that they were missing the concept of "attribute".
"Attribute" isn't a "part of speech."
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 14:33:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
I remember from my early days in this group that some people explained
all compound first constituents as "adjective", which I found quite
strange. I concluded that they were missing the concept of "attribute".
"Attribute" isn't a "part of speech."
In grade-school grammar there are exactly 8 parts of speech, no matter
how many shoehorns are needed to apply the list:

noun verb adjective adverb pronoun conjunction preposition interjection

Many Brits "of a certain age" tell us they "didn't do grammar" in school.
Did they learn that list and do exercises marking each word in a sentence
as one of them?
Katy Jennison
2020-01-07 16:02:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
In grade-school grammar there are exactly 8 parts of speech, no matter
noun verb adjective adverb pronoun conjunction preposition interjection
Many Brits "of a certain age" tell us they "didn't do grammar" in school.
Did they learn that list and do exercises marking each word in a sentence
as one of them?
I don't know which age you're certain of, but at my school we did this
at around the age of eleven. It was very enjoyable - underlining in
different colours, and making a key to show which was which. My only
doubt is that I don't remember 'interjection' being one of the parts we
were required to mark. Possibly we were never given sentences which
included interjections; or we called them something else; or, very
likely, I've simply forgotten.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 17:28:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
In grade-school grammar there are exactly 8 parts of speech, no matter
noun verb adjective adverb pronoun conjunction preposition interjection
Many Brits "of a certain age" tell us they "didn't do grammar" in school.
Did they learn that list and do exercises marking each word in a sentence
as one of them?
I don't know which age you're certain of,
Whichever age the folks here who said they didn't have "grammar class"
were when they said it and at the time referred to.

"A lady of a certain age" was a euphemism for ladies (never simply
women) of a certain degree of dignity and corpulence -- perhaps with
marriageable daughters -- who would never _think_ of revealing their age.
Post by Katy Jennison
but at my school we did this
at around the age of eleven. It was very enjoyable - underlining in
different colours, and making a key to show which was which. My only
doubt is that I don't remember 'interjection' being one of the parts we
were required to mark. Possibly we were never given sentences which
included interjections; or we called them something else; or, very
likely, I've simply forgotten.
Perhaps many of your classmates didn't find it so enjoyable. Mine mostly
hated Reed-Kellogg diagrams, but I was fascinated.
charles
2020-01-07 17:40:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
In grade-school grammar there are exactly 8 parts of speech, no matter
noun verb adjective adverb pronoun conjunction preposition interjection
Many Brits "of a certain age" tell us they "didn't do grammar" in school.
Did they learn that list and do exercises marking each word in a sentence
as one of them?
I don't know which age you're certain of,
Whichever age the folks here who said they didn't have "grammar class"
were when they said it and at the time referred to.
"A lady of a certain age" was a euphemism for ladies (never simply
women) of a certain degree of dignity and corpulence -- perhaps with
marriageable daughters -- who would never _think_ of revealing their age.
From "The Importance of Being Earnest": Thirty-five is a very attractive
age. London society is full of women of the highest birth who have been
thirty-five for years. Lady Dumbleton is a case in point. She has been
thirty-five ever since she arrived at the age of forty, which was many
years ago now."
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Katy Jennison
2020-01-07 18:05:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
In grade-school grammar there are exactly 8 parts of speech, no matter
noun verb adjective adverb pronoun conjunction preposition interjection
Many Brits "of a certain age" tell us they "didn't do grammar" in school.
Did they learn that list and do exercises marking each word in a sentence
as one of them?
I don't know which age you're certain of,
Whichever age the folks here who said they didn't have "grammar class"
were when they said it and at the time referred to.
"A lady of a certain age" was a euphemism for ladies (never simply
women) of a certain degree of dignity and corpulence -- perhaps with
marriageable daughters -- who would never _think_ of revealing their age.
Well, I was playing with you (or with words) really: after all, you've
actually met me IRL, and so you know roughly what age I am.

(Kinder than saying "Whoosh", innit?)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
but at my school we did this
at around the age of eleven. It was very enjoyable - underlining in
different colours, and making a key to show which was which. My only
doubt is that I don't remember 'interjection' being one of the parts we
were required to mark. Possibly we were never given sentences which
included interjections; or we called them something else; or, very
likely, I've simply forgotten.
Perhaps many of your classmates didn't find it so enjoyable. Mine mostly
hated Reed-Kellogg diagrams, but I was fascinated.
We didn't have a name for these exercises, and AFAIR we weren't told to
learn a list of these terms, we simply learnt what each of them referred
to. They were effectively logic puzzles. Easy once you'd grasped the
rules of the game. Good fun.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 21:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
In grade-school grammar there are exactly 8 parts of speech, no matter
noun verb adjective adverb pronoun conjunction preposition interjection
Many Brits "of a certain age" tell us they "didn't do grammar" in school.
Did they learn that list and do exercises marking each word in a sentence
as one of them?
I don't know which age you're certain of,
Whichever age the folks here who said they didn't have "grammar class"
were when they said it and at the time referred to.
"A lady of a certain age" was a euphemism for ladies (never simply
women) of a certain degree of dignity and corpulence -- perhaps with
marriageable daughters -- who would never _think_ of revealing their age.
Well, I was playing with you (or with words) really: after all, you've
actually met me IRL, and so you know roughly what age I am.
But since you _did_ learn your parts of speech in school, it doesn't
apply to you at all, now, does it?
Post by Katy Jennison
(Kinder than saying "Whoosh", innit?)
You never crossed my mind as such a person.
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
but at my school we did this
at around the age of eleven. It was very enjoyable - underlining in
different colours, and making a key to show which was which. My only
doubt is that I don't remember 'interjection' being one of the parts we
were required to mark. Possibly we were never given sentences which
included interjections; or we called them something else; or, very
likely, I've simply forgotten.
Perhaps many of your classmates didn't find it so enjoyable. Mine mostly
hated Reed-Kellogg diagrams, but I was fascinated.
We didn't have a name for these exercises, and AFAIR we weren't told to
learn a list of these terms, we simply learnt what each of them referred
to. They were effectively logic puzzles. Easy once you'd grasped the
rules of the game. Good fun.
Reed-Kellogg diagrams are where the Subject and the Predicate go on the
horizontal line with a vertical cross-stroke separating them, and the
direct object is separated from the verb with a non-crossing perpendicular,
and the modifiers hang off the line on diagonals, ... (they depict functions
rather than parts of speech).
pensive hamster
2020-01-07 20:42:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
In grade-school grammar there are exactly 8 parts of speech, no matter
noun verb adjective adverb pronoun conjunction preposition interjection
Many Brits "of a certain age" tell us they "didn't do grammar" in school.
Did they learn that list and do exercises marking each word in a sentence
as one of them?
I don't know which age you're certain of, but at my school we did this
at around the age of eleven. It was very enjoyable - underlining in
different colours, and making a key to show which was which. My only
doubt is that I don't remember 'interjection' being one of the parts we
were required to mark. Possibly we were never given sentences which
included interjections; or we called them something else; or, very
likely, I've simply forgotten.
I'm fairly confident of my age, and at my school we had the 8 parts of
speech that PTD lists, plus we had 'subject' and 'predicate' as well.

(Are they strictly parts of speech?)
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 21:22:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
In grade-school grammar there are exactly 8 parts of speech, no matter
noun verb adjective adverb pronoun conjunction preposition interjection
Many Brits "of a certain age" tell us they "didn't do grammar" in school.
Did they learn that list and do exercises marking each word in a sentence
as one of them?
I don't know which age you're certain of, but at my school we did this
at around the age of eleven. It was very enjoyable - underlining in
different colours, and making a key to show which was which. My only
doubt is that I don't remember 'interjection' being one of the parts we
were required to mark. Possibly we were never given sentences which
included interjections; or we called them something else; or, very
likely, I've simply forgotten.
I'm fairly confident of my age, and at my school we had the 8 parts of
speech that PTD lists, plus we had 'subject' and 'predicate' as well.
(Are they strictly parts of speech?)
They aren't at all. They're functions that words or phrases perform.
Madhu
2020-01-08 02:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
In grade-school grammar there are exactly 8 parts of speech, no matter
noun verb adjective adverb pronoun conjunction preposition
interjection
Many Brits "of a certain age" tell us they "didn't do grammar" in
school. Did they learn that list and do exercises marking each word
in a sentence as one of them?
In my school in India we never learnt that list or did that exercise.
This was an "english medium" school - the medium of instruction being
english (the national curriculum was based on some british curriculum)
and we had an "english" subject every year and had shakespeare from 7th
grade (7th standard)

[Dingbat can probably confirm that he didn't have any formal english
grammar taught in the english classes he was taught in his school.]
Quinn C
2020-01-07 18:17:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
I remember from my early days in this group that some people explained
all compound first constituents as "adjective", which I found quite
strange. I concluded that they were missing the concept of "attribute".
"Attribute" isn't a "part of speech."
You're being thick again. Since non-linguists often don't know
terminology such as "attribute", they may try to express that meaning
by saying "adjective", because that's the part of speech that usually
fills an attribute role.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
David Kleinecke
2020-01-07 19:11:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
I remember from my early days in this group that some people explained
all compound first constituents as "adjective", which I found quite
strange. I concluded that they were missing the concept of "attribute".
"Attribute" isn't a "part of speech."
You're being thick again. Since non-linguists often don't know
terminology such as "attribute", they may try to express that meaning
by saying "adjective", because that's the part of speech that usually
fills an attribute role.
Hum. I think that perhaps the sub-field of linguistics you adhere
to has drifted further from what some of us think is the mainstream
than we are now getting nomenclature differences.

To me "attributes" belong to world of object-based semantics that
Peter Olcutt loves or the semantic web manipulates.
Quinn C
2020-01-07 22:50:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
I remember from my early days in this group that some people explained
all compound first constituents as "adjective", which I found quite
strange. I concluded that they were missing the concept of "attribute".
"Attribute" isn't a "part of speech."
You're being thick again. Since non-linguists often don't know
terminology such as "attribute", they may try to express that meaning
by saying "adjective", because that's the part of speech that usually
fills an attribute role.
Hum. I think that perhaps the sub-field of linguistics you adhere
to has drifted further from what some of us think is the mainstream
than we are now getting nomenclature differences.
This has nothing to do with Computational Linguistics. This, I learned
in a German Linguistics 101 about 30 years ago.
Post by David Kleinecke
To me "attributes" belong to world of object-based semantics that
Peter Olcutt loves or the semantic web manipulates.
"Adjective" (like "noun" or "verb") is form; "attribute" (like
"subject" or "adjunct") is function. I think that distinction is pretty
standard for the second half of the 20th century.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_relation>
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-07 14:53:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Anton Shepelev
Post by b***@aol.com
But does the above sentence make you wonder
about the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about
the danger of confusing adjectives with preposi-
tions?
What do adjectives have to do with this?
I was referring to your question. `above' is a
preposition,
It can be (probably most often),
Post by Anton Shepelev
whereas you used it as an adjective.
as is perfectly normal,
and so is its use as an adverb.
But "the above sentence" is slightly marked compared to "the sentence
above", isn't it?
Equally marked: "above" is jargon to sound "scientific." "That sentence"
would have been perfectly clear.
Scientific? I'd say it's common in all forms of formal writing, e.g.
business writing.
Businesspeople like to think they're scientific.
No they don't. Certainly not in business correspondence.
Of course they do. Why do you suppose they invented "business schools"
that give people like Trump "degrees"?
Nonsense. This is the domain of clerks. Government, too.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The operative word
is "jargon."
I still think "formal writing" works.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
My point was that the position before the noun is *grammatically*
marked compared to the one after the noun.
English has few postposed modifiers like "galore."
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Quinn C
However, there's no garden-pathing because of the determiner -
the+Adj+N is much more likely than the+Prep+N. That's what Anton might
want to practice.
Can you come up with a credible sentence with the+Prep+ ? (In English.
It's normal in German.)
The without doubt best film ever.
German.
Dismissing data that don't fit your hypothesis doesn't make it
stronger, it makes you a cheat.
I notice this construction as unusual in English, but it's not
extremely rare. I can't think of other examples than "without doubt"
right now.
Never mind what you can think of, can you find legitimate examples in
the immense corpora that are available for searching?
If I could think of examples I could use Google. Corpora search (by
part of speech!) takes more time.
...

Not all that much once you learn how to use them--except that COCA
is slow for me at the moment. The most common relevant example of
"the [prep] [noun]" is "at risk", with 12 hits such as "the at risk
students", but 7 are from a short story with an At Risk counselor.
That's syntactically different from "the without doubt [whatever]"
(0 hits), and I'd hyphenate it.

The first one that's like "without doubt is "at times", with 6 hits,
such as "the at times unlikely success of that dynasty." There are
also 6 for "between subjects", as in "the between subjects variable".

I'm not going to go through the rest, especially since there are
many more irrelevant hits such as "the in crowd". Some familiar
attributive examples are "for profit", "on site", and "per unit".

Somewhat to my surprise, "the [prep] [determiner] [noun] is much
less common. Most hits seem to be errors in the source texts.
There's one for "the by this time". Maybe I need to use hyphens. On
Google, relevant examples of "the without any doubt" may be more
common that "the without doubt" or "the without a doubt", but it's
hard to tell.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 14:56:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
The first one that's like "without doubt is "at times", with 6 hits,
such as "the at times unlikely success of that dynasty." There are
also 6 for "between subjects", as in "the between subjects variable".
I'm not going to go through the rest, especially since there are
many more irrelevant hits such as "the in crowd".
"in" there is an adjective. (Take that, Shepelev!) Is the parsing-
labeling done by machine?
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-07 16:32:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
The first one that's like "without doubt is "at times", with 6 hits,
such as "the at times unlikely success of that dynasty." There are
also 6 for "between subjects", as in "the between subjects variable".
I'm not going to go through the rest, especially since there are
many more irrelevant hits such as "the in crowd".
"in" there is an adjective. (Take that, Shepelev!) Is the parsing-
labeling done by machine?
Yes. The program is called CLAWS, as I remember, and it comes up
with all kinds of comical errors, but for something like this it's
much better than nothing.
--
Jerry Friedman
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-07 13:14:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I see English speakers categorize a lot of things
as adjective that I consider nouns.
The word `systems' is a noun in "optical systems"
but an adjective in "systems programming." Do you
mean such instances?
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter Moylan
2020-01-07 13:22:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I see English speakers categorize a lot of things as adjective
that I consider nouns.
The word `systems' is a noun in "optical systems" but an
adjective in "systems programming." Do you mean such instances?
That the classification of parts of speech is a controversial subject, I
accept. Still, I would rather say that "systems" is a noun in the latter
case; which of course implies a position that lets nouns be modifiers of
other nouns.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-07 14:30:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
I see English speakers categorize a lot of things
as adjective that I consider nouns.
The word `systems' is a noun in "optical systems"
but an adjective in "systems programming." Do you
mean such instances?
"systems programming" is usually considered a "noun-noun compound."

There are various sources of noun-noun compounds. This one presumably
corresponds to "programming of systems."
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-05 15:30:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
The without doubt best film ever.
Incorrect in Anton's English. Should be

Without doubt the best film ever.
Post by Quinn C
The above average size of the box
(could have a hyphen, but often hasn't.)
Without the hyphen, it still a compund adjective,
although badly spelled.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-05 15:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
However, there's no garden-pathing because of the
determiner -- the+Adj+N is much more likely than
the+Prep+N.
Is the latter pattern possible at all?
That's what Anton might want to practice.
The the+adj+noun pattern is so common and universal
that I am tired of reading it everywhere, let alone
of writing it (altough I just have done).
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Quinn C
2020-01-03 22:36:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
But does the above sentence make you wonder about
the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about the
danger of confusing adjectives with prepositions?
What do adjectives have to do with this? "After tripping over a shoelace
that came untied" is a prepositional phrase and indeed constitutes a
dangling modifier in the sentence.
Interestingly, that doesn't bother me at all. But I was momentarily
confused which "if" is missing in the rest of Tony's sentence:

| ... this article makes me
| wonder if I was better at math I could avoid this danger:

It should be:
... wonder if if I was better at math I could avoid this danger.

Or better:
... wonder whether if I was better at math I could avoid this danger.
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-03 23:25:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Anton Shepelev
But does the above sentence make you wonder about
the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about the
danger of confusing adjectives with prepositions?
What do adjectives have to do with this? "After tripping over a shoelace
that came untied" is a prepositional phrase and indeed constitutes a
dangling modifier in the sentence.
Interestingly, that doesn't bother me at all. But I was momentarily
| ... this article makes me
... wonder if if I was better at math I could avoid this danger.
... wonder whether if I was better at math I could avoid this danger.
Or, to avoid the awkwardness of a dual-conjunction construction:

... wonder, were I better at math, I could avoid this danger.
Post by Quinn C
--
(\_/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-03 23:43:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Quinn C
Interestingly, that doesn't bother me at all. But I was momentarily
| ... this article makes me
... wonder if if I was better at math I could avoid this danger.
... wonder whether if I was better at math I could avoid this danger.
... wonder, were I better at math, I could avoid this danger.
Nope, not in the 21st century. You might find it in Austen.
Anton Shepelev
2020-01-05 12:42:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Or, to avoid the awkwardness of a dual-conjunction
...wonder, were I better at math, I could avoid this
danger.
But you need at least one, that is:

wonder *whether*, were I better at math, I could avoid
this danger.

but I prefer simply to separate the conjunctions spatially:

...wonder whether I could avoid this danger if I were
better at math.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Kerr-Mudd,John
2020-01-04 11:33:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anton Shepelev
But does the above sentence make you wonder about
the danger of dangling modifiers?
Does the question above make you wonder about the
danger of confusing adjectives with prepositions?
I trust rhetorical questions are allowed in this thread?
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Moylan
2020-01-04 02:16:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
No need to go deeply into the analysis, because I can give you a brief
summary: a lace-tying strategy that makes it unlikely that your shoe
laces will come undone is also a strategy that will make it impossible
to take your shoes off at night.

But read the article anyway, because it's always good for one's general
education to learn a bit of string theory.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Mack A. Damia
2020-01-04 02:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 13:16:03 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
No need to go deeply into the analysis, because I can give you a brief
summary: a lace-tying strategy that makes it unlikely that your shoe
laces will come undone is also a strategy that will make it impossible
to take your shoes off at night.
But read the article anyway, because it's always good for one's general
education to learn a bit of string theory.
The eyes have it.
Snidely
2020-01-04 09:27:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
No need to go deeply into the analysis, because I can give you a brief
summary: a lace-tying strategy that makes it unlikely that your shoe
laces will come undone is also a strategy that will make it impossible
to take your shoes off at night.
But read the article anyway, because it's always good for one's general
education to learn a bit of string theory.
The article is aimed more at climbers and sailors.

/dps "and maybe your grannie"
--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-04 09:55:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter Moylan
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
No need to go deeply into the analysis, because I can give you a brief
summary: a lace-tying strategy that makes it unlikely that your shoe
laces will come undone is also a strategy that will make it impossible
to take your shoes off at night.
But read the article anyway, because it's always good for one's general
education to learn a bit of string theory.
The article is aimed more at climbers and sailors.
And real sailors know that any landlubber can make knots
that can be very hard to undo.
The sailor's art otoh is to make knots that hold,
and that are easily and rapidly undone when needed,

Jan
s***@gmail.com
2020-01-05 06:15:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter Moylan
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
No need to go deeply into the analysis, because I can give you a brief
summary: a lace-tying strategy that makes it unlikely that your shoe
laces will come undone is also a strategy that will make it impossible
to take your shoes off at night.
But read the article anyway, because it's always good for one's general
education to learn a bit of string theory.
The article is aimed more at climbers and sailors.
And real sailors know that any landlubber can make knots
that can be very hard to undo.
The sailor's art otoh is to make knots that hold,
and that are easily and rapidly undone when needed,
Yep. Overhand knots are abhorred, and even reef knots have limited used.
Bowlines are very useful (and familiar to climbers, I believe).
There are arguments over when to use two half hitches and
when to use clove hitches, although the latter are favored
for tying up to bollards,
and the halves for tying up to rings.


"Slipped knots" show up many times, and truckers use some of the same ones.
(The bow knot for shoelaces is an example of a slipped knot.)

The _Ashley Book of Knots_ includes a section of Ashley's experiments
with knot strength and unknotting after load is removed.
He didn't have luminous threads, though.

My weakness is in lashings for temporary structures,
and I've lost track of the '60s Scout Manual
that was my primary reference.
I have never had to jury-rig a mast, though, so all good.

/dps
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-05 07:43:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter Moylan
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
No need to go deeply into the analysis, because I can give you a brief
summary: a lace-tying strategy that makes it unlikely that your shoe
laces will come undone is also a strategy that will make it impossible
to take your shoes off at night.
But read the article anyway, because it's always good for one's general
education to learn a bit of string theory.
The article is aimed more at climbers and sailors.
And real sailors know that any landlubber can make knots
that can be very hard to undo.
The sailor's art otoh is to make knots that hold,
and that are easily and rapidly undone when needed,
Yep. Overhand knots are abhorred, and even reef knots have limited used.
I used to know how to tie a thief knot, which looks exacly like a reef
knot at a casual glance, but can be untied just by pulling on the two
ends.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Bowlines are very useful (and familiar to climbers, I believe).
There are arguments over when to use two half hitches and
when to use clove hitches, although the latter are favored
for tying up to bollards,
and the halves for tying up to rings.
"Slipped knots" show up many times, and truckers use some of the same ones.
(The bow knot for shoelaces is an example of a slipped knot.)
The _Ashley Book of Knots_ includes a section of Ashley's experiments
with knot strength and unknotting after load is removed.
He didn't have luminous threads, though.
My weakness is in lashings for temporary structures,
and I've lost track of the '60s Scout Manual
that was my primary reference.
I have never had to jury-rig a mast, though, so all good.
/dps
--
athel
Jerry Friedman
2020-01-05 16:29:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by J. J. Lodder
And real sailors know that any landlubber can make knots
that can be very hard to undo.
The sailor's art otoh is to make knots that hold,
and that are easily and rapidly undone when needed,
Yep. Overhand knots are abhorred, and even reef knots have limited used.
I used to know how to tie a thief knot, which looks exacly like a reef
knot at a casual glance, but can be untied just by pulling on the two
ends.


I may have known at one time that "reef knot" is another name for
what I call a "square knot".
--
Jerry Friedman
occam
2020-01-05 08:58:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
My weakness is in lashings for temporary structures,
Sounds a harsh thing to do to a temporary structure.
Post by s***@gmail.com
and I've lost track of the '60s Scout Manual
that was my primary reference.
Ah, the Scout Manual for lashings...
Post by s***@gmail.com
I have never had to jury-rig a mast, ...
'Jury-rigging a mast' sounds like a euphemism, and downright
unconstitutional at the best of times.
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-05 10:58:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
My weakness is in lashings for temporary structures,
Sounds a harsh thing to do to a temporary structure.
Post by s***@gmail.com
and I've lost track of the '60s Scout Manual
that was my primary reference.
Ah, the Scout Manual for lashings...
Lashings should be applied manually?
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
I have never had to jury-rig a mast, ...
'Jury-rigging a mast' sounds like a euphemism, and downright
unconstitutional at the best of times.
It may be allowed for a day,

Jan
Sam Plusnet
2020-01-05 21:44:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
My weakness is in lashings for temporary structures,
Sounds a harsh thing to do to a temporary structure.
Post by s***@gmail.com
and I've lost track of the '60s Scout Manual
that was my primary reference.
Ah, the Scout Manual for lashings...
Lashings of Ginger beer?
--
Sam Plusnet
Paul Carmichael
2020-01-04 11:59:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
No need to go deeply into the analysis, because I can give you a brief
summary: a lace-tying strategy that makes it unlikely that your shoe
laces will come undone is also a strategy that will make it impossible
to take your shoes off at night.
Especially after a few beers, I would guess.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es
Tak To
2020-01-06 17:24:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes me
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
No need for maths. Just watch this TED talk.
https://www.ted.com/talks/terry_moore_how_to_tie_your_shoes?language=en
I know the mathematical solution is a more generalised formulation, but
this video has saved me hours of re-tying undone shoelaces by watching a
2 minute video.
The difference between the square (reef) knot and the granny
knot was one of the first things that boy scouts were taught
back in my teen years. (I was never a scout myself.)

It was also taught in first aid classes. Interestingly the
reason the that square knot is preferred to the granny knot
in tying triangular bandages is that it is *easier* to undo by
"capsizing".
Loading Image...

As usual, strolling through Wikip reveals many interesting
tidbits, such as the specific names "Thief Knot" and "Grief
Knot" for the small differences in orientation, the names of
the knots in other languages, as well as the fact that /The
Ashley Book of Knots/ (I have a copy of which for many years)
is used as a standard reference nowadays.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
b***@aol.com
2020-01-06 17:43:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tak To
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes me
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-mathematical-stability.html
No need for maths. Just watch this TED talk.
https://www.ted.com/talks/terry_moore_how_to_tie_your_shoes?language=en
I know the mathematical solution is a more generalised formulation, but
this video has saved me hours of re-tying undone shoelaces by watching a
2 minute video.
The difference between the square (reef) knot and the granny
knot was one of the first things that boy scouts were taught
back in my teen years. (I was never a scout myself.)
It was also taught in first aid classes. Interestingly the
reason the that square knot is preferred to the granny knot
in tying triangular bandages is that it is *easier* to undo by
"capsizing".
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Capsizereefknot111.jpg
As usual, strolling through Wikip reveals many interesting
tidbits, such as the specific names "Thief Knot" and "Grief
Knot" for the small differences in orientation, the names of
the knots in other languages, as well as the fact that /The
Ashley Book of Knots/ (I have a copy of which for many years)
ObAUE: or maybe "(a copy of which I've had for many years)"?
Post by Tak To
is used as a standard reference nowadays.
--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Stefan Ram
2020-01-08 01:40:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes me
Whenever I read this subject, a kind of what I believe to be
an innuendo by Bob Dylan comes to my mind. (So I suppressed
this post over and over. But then I kept reading this subject.)

|I must admit I felt a little uneasy
|When she bent down to tie the laces of my shoe

However, I am not gonna tell you all what it means
(in my interpretation).

FWIW, math is mentioned indirectly in the same song:

|All the people we used to know
|They’re an illusion to me now
|Some are mathematicians
|Some are carpenters’ wives

.
Peter Moylan
2020-01-08 02:58:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Stefan Ram
After tripping over a shoelace that came untied, this article makes me
Whenever I read this subject, a kind of what I believe to be
an innuendo by Bob Dylan comes to my mind. (So I suppressed
this post over and over. But then I kept reading this subject.)
|I must admit I felt a little uneasy
|When she bent down to tie the laces of my shoe
However, I am not gonna tell you all what it means
(in my interpretation).
There used to be a claim that the curtsy developed for a similar reason,
but I haven't found any trustworthy references to support that.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Loading...