Arguably more important than the actual cuts is the signal that the government is sending.

[[e-mail]]

The following is an excerpt of the editorial from <https://globalcirculate.com/the-guardian-view-on-arts-education-cuts-we-dont-need-no-philistines-editorial/>:

<quote>
Arguably more important than the actual cuts is the signal that the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority. The letter to the OfS from Mr Williamson pointed to “further reductions in future years”. No wonder artists and musicians including Jarvis Cocker are protesting loudly.
</quote>

In the first sentence above, the "Arguably more important than the actual cuts" is predicative, and the whole sentence can be rephrased as below:

The signal, which the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority, is arguably more important than the actual cuts.

Am I right?

Regards,
HY

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by ***@gmail.com
<quote>
Arguably more important than the actual cuts is the signal that the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority. The letter to the OfS from Mr Williamson pointed to “further reductions in future years”. No wonder artists and musicians including Jarvis Cocker are protesting loudly.
</quote>
The signal, which the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority, is arguably more important than the actual cuts.
Am I right?

Your comma and "which" are wrong, your understanding of the "arguably"
phrase is correct, and your reordering is impossibly confusing.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com
<quote>
Arguably more important than the actual cuts is the signal that the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority. The letter to the OfS from Mr Williamson pointed to “further reductions in future years”. No wonder artists and musicians including Jarvis Cocker are protesting loudly.
</quote>
The signal, which the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority, is arguably more important than the actual cuts.
Am I right?

Your comma and "which" are wrong, your understanding of the "arguably"
phrase is correct, and your reordering is impossibly confusing.

Do you mean that in this case, where the subject is very long, inversion is an inevitable grammatical trick?

HY

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com
<quote>
Arguably more important than the actual cuts is the signal that the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority. The letter to the OfS from Mr Williamson pointed to “further reductions in future years”. No wonder artists and musicians including Jarvis Cocker are protesting loudly.
</quote>
The signal, which the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority, is arguably more important than the actual cuts.
Am I right?

Your comma and "which" are wrong, your understanding of the "arguably"
phrase is correct, and your reordering is impossibly confusing.

Do you mean that in this case, where the subject is very long, inversion is an inevitable grammatical trick?

"Inevitable" and "trick" are incompatible.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com
<quote>
Arguably more important than the actual cuts is the signal that the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority. The letter to the OfS from Mr Williamson pointed to “further reductions in future years”. No wonder artists and musicians including Jarvis Cocker are protesting loudly.
</quote>
The signal, which the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority, is arguably more important than the actual cuts.
Am I right?

Your comma and "which" are wrong, your understanding of the "arguably"
phrase is correct, and your reordering is impossibly confusing.

Do you mean that in this case, where the subject is very long, inversion is an inevitable grammatical trick?

"Inevitable" and "trick" are incompatible.

Do you mean that if something is inevitable, then it's not a trick?

If so, how about changing "trick" into "phenomenon"?

HY

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com
<quote>
Arguably more important than the actual cuts is the signal that the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority. The letter to the OfS from Mr Williamson pointed to “further reductions in future years”. No wonder artists and musicians including Jarvis Cocker are protesting loudly.
</quote>
The signal, which the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority, is arguably more important than the actual cuts.
Am I right?

Your comma and "which" are wrong, your understanding of the "arguably"
phrase is correct, and your reordering is impossibly confusing.

Do you mean that in this case, where the subject is very long, inversion is an inevitable grammatical trick?

"Inevitable" and "trick" are incompatible.

Do you mean that if something is inevitable, then it's not a trick?
If so, how about changing "trick" into "phenomenon"?

Why not simply "is inevitable"?

And the answer to that question is, I don't know, but doubtless someone
has written an article, if not a dissertation, on the matter.

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com
Do you mean that in this case, where the subject is very long, inversion is an inevitable grammatical trick?

"Inevitable" and "trick" are incompatible.

Do you mean that if something is inevitable, then it's not a trick?
If so, how about changing "trick" into "phenomenon"?

"Trick" is a word which implies deception or cunning. These are not present here.

"Inevitable" is too strong. As Jerry Friedman has shown the sentence can be written
perfectly clearly without inversion.

Bringing the main point to the beginning is a possible choice,
not an inevitable necessity.

The author has to make a decision which way to write the sentence

[[e-mail]]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com
Do you mean that in this case, where the subject is very long, inversion is an inevitable grammatical trick?

"Inevitable" and "trick" are incompatible.

Do you mean that if something is inevitable, then it's not a trick?
If so, how about changing "trick" into "phenomenon"?

"Trick" is a word which implies deception or cunning. These are not present here.
"Inevitable" is too strong. As Jerry Friedman has shown the sentence can be written
perfectly clearly without inversion.

Do you mean the original version is not an inversion sentence?

Post by s***@my-deja.com
Bringing the main point to the beginning is a possible choice,
not an inevitable necessity.

Do you mean the original version is a preferable style?

Post by s***@my-deja.com
The author has to make a decision which way to write the sentence

I'm not sure if you should have written as below:

The author has to make a decision on which way to write the sentence

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Do you mean the original version is not an inversion sentence?

Inversion is the reversal of the usual word order. The original does
invert the usual word order.

I am not sure that "inversion sentence" is an accepted collocation,
but it is clear what you mean.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by s***@my-deja.com
Bringing the main point to the beginning is a possible choice,
not an inevitable necessity.

Do you mean the original version is a preferable style?

That is what Jerry said, and I agree with him because message is complex
and more clearly conveyed in the original version.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by s***@my-deja.com
The author has to make a decision which way to write the sentence

The author has to make a decision on which way to write the sentence

What you have written is better than my version, but the
"on" is not absolutely essential
"The author has to make a decision regarding which way to write the sentence"
is another way of saying that..

[Peter Moylan]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com
Do you mean that in this case, where the subject is very long,
inversion is an inevitable grammatical trick?

"Inevitable" and "trick" are incompatible.

Do you mean that if something is inevitable, then it's not a
trick? If so, how about changing "trick" into "phenomenon"?

"Trick" is a word which implies deception or cunning. These are not present here.
"Inevitable" is too strong. As Jerry Friedman has shown the sentence
can be written perfectly clearly without inversion.
Bringing the main point to the beginning is a possible choice, not an
inevitable necessity.
The author has to make a decision which way to write the sentence

And that decision is often governed by the author's opinion as to which
part of the sentence should be emphasised.

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com
Do you mean that in this case, where the subject is very long,
inversion is an inevitable grammatical trick?

"Inevitable" and "trick" are incompatible.

Do you mean that if something is inevitable, then it's not a
trick? If so, how about changing "trick" into "phenomenon"?

"Trick" is a word which implies deception or cunning. These are not present here.
"Inevitable" is too strong. As Jerry Friedman has shown the sentence
can be written perfectly clearly without inversion.
Bringing the main point to the beginning is a possible choice, not an
inevitable necessity.
The author has to make a decision which way to write the sentence

And that decision is often governed by the author's opinion as to which
part of the sentence should be emphasised.

Exactly.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com
Do you mean that in this case, where the subject is very long,
inversion is an inevitable grammatical trick?

"Inevitable" and "trick" are incompatible.

Do you mean that if something is inevitable, then it's not a
trick? If so, how about changing "trick" into "phenomenon"?

"Trick" is a word which implies deception or cunning. These are not present here.
"Inevitable" is too strong. As Jerry Friedman has shown the sentence
can be written perfectly clearly without inversion.
Bringing the main point to the beginning is a possible choice, not an
inevitable necessity.
The author has to make a decision which way to write the sentence

And that decision is often governed by the author's opinion as to which
part of the sentence should be emphasised.

In English, the part being emphasized usually comes at the end. It may
be different in OP's first language.

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
In English, the part being emphasized usually comes at the end. It may
be different in OP's first language.

Guoyu is a Subject-Verb-Object language, but complex Objects may be brought to the front.

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
In English, the part being emphasized usually comes at the end. It may
be different in OP's first language.

Guoyu is a Subject-Verb-Object language, but complex Objects may be brought to the front.

But what about Topicalization?
The leading scholars of Chinese grammar, Li and Thompson, before they
published their immense grammar of the language, had published the
highly influential book *Subject and Topic*, which foreshadowed the
development of the field of pragmatics. There are lots of languages
where the Greek/Latin-based notion of "subject of a verb" isn't terribly
helpful in understanding how they work, and this approach emerged
from their analyses of Chinese.

Then you are totally equipped to look it up yourself and report back at length.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
In English, the part being emphasized usually comes at the end. It may
be different in OP's first language.

Guoyu is a Subject-Verb-Object language, but complex Objects may be
brought to the front.

But what about Topicalization?
The leading scholars of Chinese grammar, Li and Thompson, before they
published their immense grammar of the language, had published the
highly influential book *Subject and Topic*, which foreshadowed the
development of the field of pragmatics. There are lots of languages
where the Greek/Latin-based notion of "subject of a verb" isn't terribly
helpful in understanding how they work, and this approach emerged
from their analyses of Chinese.

Then you are totally equipped to look it up yourself and report back at length.

Why?

You said something that might be useful to HY, and I pointed out that
this began to be studied, on the basis of Chinese, about 50 years ago.

The book is bright yellow, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's faded by now.
The print on the cover (there's no dust jacket) is very dark blue.

I was never much interested in syntax.

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
In English, the part being emphasized usually comes at the end. It may
be different in OP's first language.

Guoyu is a Subject-Verb-Object language, but complex Objects may be
brought to the front.

But what about Topicalization?
The leading scholars of Chinese grammar, Li and Thompson, before they
published their immense grammar of the language, had published the
highly influential book *Subject and Topic*, which foreshadowed the
development of the field of pragmatics. There are lots of languages
where the Greek/Latin-based notion of "subject of a verb" isn't terribly
helpful in understanding how they work, and this approach emerged
from their analyses of Chinese.

Then you are totally equipped to look it up yourself and report back at length.

Why?
You said something that might be useful to HY, and I pointed out that
this began to be studied, on the basis of Chinese, about 50 years ago.
The book is bright yellow, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's faded by now.
The print on the cover (there's no dust jacket) is very dark blue.
I was never much interested in syntax.

"With regard to" can be used to bring the matter you want to discuss - provided it
follows certain rules - to the beginning of the sentence where it is treated as a
complex Object.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
In English, the part being emphasized usually comes at the end. It may
be different in OP's first language.

Guoyu is a Subject-Verb-Object language, but complex Objects may be
brought to the front.

But what about Topicalization?
The leading scholars of Chinese grammar, Li and Thompson, before they
published their immense grammar of the language, had published the
highly influential book *Subject and Topic*, which foreshadowed the
development of the field of pragmatics. There are lots of languages
where the Greek/Latin-based notion of "subject of a verb" isn't terribly
helpful in understanding how they work, and this approach emerged
from their analyses of Chinese.

Then you are totally equipped to look it up yourself and report back at length.

Why?
You said something that might be useful to HY, and I pointed out that
this began to be studied, on the basis of Chinese, about 50 years ago.
The book is bright yellow, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's faded by now.
The print on the cover (there's no dust jacket) is very dark blue.
I was never much interested in syntax.

"With regard to" can be used to bring the matter you want to discuss - provided it
follows certain rules - to the beginning of the sentence where it is treated as a
complex Object.

English has a wealth of topicalization devices that don't involve adding words.

Quite a few were catalogued by Haj Ross in his 1967 Chomsky-dissertation,
which quickly became the Bible of Generative Semantics.

I don't believe he used the term "topicalization." He was looking for "Constraints
on Variables in Syntax."

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
English has a wealth of topicalization devices that don't involve adding words.
Quite a few were catalogued by Haj Ross in his 1967 Chomsky-dissertation,
which quickly became the Bible of Generative Semantics.
I don't believe he used the term "topicalization." He was looking for "Constraints
on Variables in Syntax."

And rhubarb, rhubarb to you too.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
English has a wealth of topicalization devices that don't involve adding words.
Quite a few were catalogued by Haj Ross in his 1967 Chomsky-dissertation,
which quickly became the Bible of Generative Semantics.
I don't believe he used the term "topicalization." He was looking for "Constraints
on Variables in Syntax."

And rhubarb, rhubarb to you too.

No doubt if you gave minimal details regarding something you did professionally
(from which you are semiretired), much of it would be unfamiliar to many of the
readers here, but they would probably not rudely flaunt their ignorance.

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
English has a wealth of topicalization devices that don't involve adding words.
Quite a few were catalogued by Haj Ross in his 1967 Chomsky-dissertation,
which quickly became the Bible of Generative Semantics.
I don't believe he used the term "topicalization." He was looking for "Constraints
on Variables in Syntax."

And rhubarb, rhubarb to you too.

No doubt if you gave minimal details regarding something you did professionally
(from which you are semiretired), much of it would be unfamiliar to many of the
readers here, but they would probably not rudely flaunt their ignorance.

Good, you appear to be paying attention, something which was not entirely obvious before.

Your inflated sense of entitlement has got you into trouble again. If you want a dissertation
on chinese topicalisation KINDLY DO IT YOURSELF as I invited you to before. I can recommend
a good grammar book if you are unable to source one.

You have a nasty habit of asking others to provide information while you hover vulture like
ready to criticise roundly. It is time to do the homework yourself and give others the opportunity
to add their comments if they wish to.

However all is not entirely bad. Newsgroups which include an eccentric to stir them into action
seem to last longer than those which do not.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
English has a wealth of topicalization devices that don't involve adding words.
Quite a few were catalogued by Haj Ross in his 1967 Chomsky-dissertation,
which quickly became the Bible of Generative Semantics.
I don't believe he used the term "topicalization." He was looking for "Constraints
on Variables in Syntax."

And rhubarb, rhubarb to you too.

No doubt if you gave minimal details regarding something you did professionally
(from which you are semiretired), much of it would be unfamiliar to many of the
readers here, but they would probably not rudely flaunt their ignorance.

Good, you appear to be paying attention, something which was not entirely obvious before.

It would be appropriate to apologize for the insult.

Post by s***@my-deja.com
Your inflated sense of entitlement has got you into trouble again. If you want a dissertation
on chinese topicalisation KINDLY DO IT YOURSELF as I invited you to before. I can recommend
a good grammar book if you are unable to source one.

When was it published?

Post by s***@my-deja.com
You have a nasty habit of asking others to provide information while you hover vulture like
ready to criticise roundly. It is time to do the homework yourself and give others the opportunity
to add their comments if they wish to.

I am not "asking for information." I am pointing you in a direction that would
probably be quite useful in your endeavors here.

How is it that you cannot comprehend that subject and topic is a _huge_
realm of syntactic theory, whose study was inspired by facts about Chinese?

I am interested in neither syntax nor Chinese (even the Chinese writing system
isn't all that interesting, because it has barely changed in 2000 years, and when
it first appeared in the historical record, a bit more than 1000 years before then,
it was already fully formed and barely distinguishable except in the shapes of
the characters from the present system).

You, however, are interested in instructing our Chinese correspondents in terms
of their language and how it differs from English, and it seems like the whole
notion of topicalization would be a very useful one to have in the ESL teacher's
toolkit. In other areas, linguistics has been allowed to influence ESL practice.
Has it not penetrated the Chinese sphere?

Post by s***@my-deja.com
However all is not entirely bad. Newsgroups which include an eccentric to stir them into action
seem to last longer than those which do not.

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
English has a wealth of topicalization devices that don't involve adding words.
Quite a few were catalogued by Haj Ross in his 1967 Chomsky-dissertation,
which quickly became the Bible of Generative Semantics.
I don't believe he used the term "topicalization." He was looking for "Constraints
on Variables in Syntax."

And rhubarb, rhubarb to you too.

No doubt if you gave minimal details regarding something you did professionally
(from which you are semiretired), much of it would be unfamiliar to many of the
readers here, but they would probably not rudely flaunt their ignorance.

Good, you appear to be paying attention, something which was not entirely obvious before.

It would be appropriate to apologize for the insult.

You are STILL not paying attention

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@my-deja.com
Your inflated sense of entitlement has got you into trouble again. If you want a dissertation
on chinese topicalisation KINDLY DO IT YOURSELF as I invited you to before. I can recommend
a good grammar book if you are unable to source one.

When was it published?

Post by s***@my-deja.com
You have a nasty habit of asking others to provide information while you hover vulture like
ready to criticise roundly. It is time to do the homework yourself and give others the opportunity
to add their comments if they wish to.

I am not "asking for information." I am pointing you in a direction that would
probably be quite useful in your endeavors here.
How is it that you cannot comprehend that subject and topic is a _huge_
realm of syntactic theory, whose study was inspired by facts about Chinese?
I am interested in neither syntax nor Chinese (even the Chinese writing system
isn't all that interesting, because it has barely changed in 2000 years, and when
it first appeared in the historical record, a bit more than 1000 years before then,
it was already fully formed and barely distinguishable except in the shapes of
the characters from the present system).
You, however, are interested in instructing our Chinese correspondents in terms
of their language and how it differs from English, and it seems like the whole
notion of topicalization would be a very useful one to have in the ESL teacher's
toolkit. In other areas, linguistics has been allowed to influence ESL practice.
Has it not penetrated the Chinese sphere?

Post by s***@my-deja.com
However all is not entirely bad. Newsgroups which include an eccentric to stir them into action
seem to last longer than those which do not.

This a two part answer:-

PART ONE
The grammar was first published in 2004
a. This should allow you to find the book without having to demean your self to ask the title.
b. No, you don't already have it. If you had it you would not have been asking all these questions.
c. If you find it does not go from a-z, only from a-x, that is because the authors decided that y and z were not
important enough to be included.
d. Ask again if you can't find it.

PART TWO.
Perhaps I was too kind in calling you eccentric. Stark raving bonkers might be closer.
I am glad you found out that Chinese is an old language. You, yourself should study
it more, but remember the old saying that you will always have three tenths more to learn.

[Peter T. Daniels]

This a two part answer:-
PART ONE
The grammar was first published in 2004
a. This should allow you to find the book without having to demean your self to ask the title.
b. No, you don't already have it. If you had it you would not have been asking all these questions.
c. If you find it does not go from a-z, only from a-x, that is because the authors decided that y and z were not
important enough to be included.
d. Ask again if you can't find it.

You still haven't realized that I don't care?

If you're not interested in the fact that a fact about Chinese grammar
proved immensely important in the development of modern linguistics,
that's not my problem.

Are you saying that this book of yours doesn't deal with topicalization?
It would be very useful indeed for an ESL teacher to know about.

PART TWO.
Perhaps I was too kind in calling you eccentric. Stark raving bonkers might be closer.
I am glad you found out that Chinese is an old language. You, yourself should study
it more, but remember the old saying that you will always have three tenths more to learn.

Sorry, I'm a Semitist, not a Sinicist.

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

This a two part answer:-
PART ONE
The grammar was first published in 2004
a. This should allow you to find the book without having to demean your self to ask the title.
b. No, you don't already have it. If you had it you would not have been asking all these questions.
c. If you find it does not go from a-z, only from a-x, that is because the authors decided
that y and z were not important enough to be included.
d. Ask again if you can't find it.

You still haven't realized that I don't care?
If you're not interested in the fact that a fact about Chinese grammar
proved immensely important in the development of modern linguistics,
that's not my problem.
Are you saying that this book of yours doesn't deal with topicalization?
It would be very useful indeed for an ESL teacher to know about.

Ah, yes: "This book of yours"
Archery the "book" is comprehensive.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

PART TWO.
Perhaps I was too kind in calling you eccentric. Stark raving bonkers might be closer.
I am glad you found out that Chinese is an old language. You, yourself should study
it more, but remember the old saying that you will always have three tenths more to learn.

Sorry, I'm a Semitist, not a Sinicist.

What's a semmit? (NB perfectly polite and unrelated to ethnicity).

One day, if you think hard about it, you may discover which language is used
in ESL classes. Others are but useful bonuses.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

This a two part answer:-
PART ONE
The grammar was first published in 2004
a. This should allow you to find the book without having to demean your self to ask the title.
b. No, you don't already have it. If you had it you would not have been asking all these questions.
c. If you find it does not go from a-z, only from a-x, that is because the authors decided
that y and z were not important enough to be included.
d. Ask again if you can't find it.

You still haven't realized that I don't care?
If you're not interested in the fact that a fact about Chinese grammar
proved immensely important in the development of modern linguistics,
that's not my problem.
Are you saying that this book of yours doesn't deal with topicalization?
It would be very useful indeed for an ESL teacher to know about.

Ah, yes: "This book of yours"
Archery the "book" is comprehensive.

A five-word salad!

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

PART TWO.
Perhaps I was too kind in calling you eccentric. Stark raving bonkers might be closer.
I am glad you found out that Chinese is an old language. You, yourself should study
it more, but remember the old saying that you will always have three tenths more to learn.

Sorry, I'm a Semitist, not a Sinicist.

What's a semmit? (NB perfectly polite and unrelated to ethnicity).

No idea. A Semitist deals with the Semitic languages.

Post by s***@my-deja.com
One day, if you think hard about it, you may discover which language is used
in ESL classes. Others are but useful bonuses.

English, hopefully. If as an ESL teacher you had the luxury of a class full of
students who all had the same native language, your situation was a bit
unusual in the ESL world. Presumably you already know *The Education of
*H*y*m*a*n* *K*a*p*l*a*n** by Leonard Q. Ross (I.e. Leo Rosten), a highly
fictionalized memoir of his early days.

[s***@my-deja.com]

<snip>

If as an ESL teacher you had the luxury of a class full of students who
all had the same native language, your situation was a bit unusual in
the ESL world.

Business students are often individual. I did mention school groups earlier.

Presumably you already know *The Education of
*H*y*m*a*n* *K*a*p*l*a*n** by Leonard Q. Ross (I.e. Leo Rosten), a highly
fictionalized memoir of his early days.

The humour did not appeal.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@my-deja.com
<snip>

If as an ESL teacher you had the luxury of a class full of students who
all had the same native language, your situation was a bit unusual in
the ESL world.

Business students are often individual. I did mention school groups earlier.

Presumably you already know *The Education of
*H*y*m*a*n* *K*a*p*l*a*n** by Leonard Q. Ross (I.e. Leo Rosten), a highly
fictionalized memoir of his early days.

The humour did not appeal.

What do you think of the sentence

"Just because I was an ESL teacher doesn't mean I enjoyed the Hyman
Kaplan stories."

?

[Madhu]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Just because I was an ESL teacher doesn't mean I enjoyed the Hyman
Kaplan stories."

This construct is familiar to me and I think i've used it many times (in
jest or satire or ridicule). I don't think there is a form in some
indian language form which maps directly to it though as there is
apparently in chinese.

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Just because I was an ESL teacher doesn't mean I enjoyed the Hyman
Kaplan stories."

I see young Daniels there at the back of the class jumping up and down
in schoolboy glee in the hope that Teacher cannot answer his trick question.

Naught, naughty that he should have such wicked thoughts.

]

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Just because I was an ESL teacher doesn't mean I enjoyed the Hyman
Kaplan stories."

I see young Daniels there at the back of the class jumping up and down
in schoolboy glee in the hope that Teacher cannot answer his trick question.
Naught, naughty that he should have such wicked thoughts.

Is that a claim that "teacher" _can't_ answer the question?

If one of his private-tutored Chinese students asked him about the
construction, what would he say?

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Just because I was an ESL teacher doesn't mean I enjoyed the Hyman
Kaplan stories."

I see young Daniels there at the back of the class jumping up and down
in schoolboy glee in the hope that Teacher cannot answer his trick question.
Naught, naughty that he should have such wicked thoughts.

Is that a claim that "teacher" _can't_ answer the question?
If one of his private-tutored Chinese students asked him about the
construction, what would he say?

That it is messy and there is a discussion to be read:-
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/47584/sentence-construction-just-because-does-not-mean

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Just because I was an ESL teacher doesn't mean I enjoyed the Hyman
Kaplan stories."

I see young Daniels there at the back of the class jumping up and down
in schoolboy glee in the hope that Teacher cannot answer his trick question.
Naught, naughty that he should have such wicked thoughts.

Is that a claim that "teacher" _can't_ answer the question?
If one of his private-tutored Chinese students asked him about the
construction, what would he say?

That it is messy and there is a discussion to be read:-
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/47584/sentence-construction-just-because-does-not-mean

The discussion begins with a red herring ("that/it") and finally gets to '
someone who says that the problem is exactly what I said in the first
place -- it's unparsable; there is no analysis of why it might have become
the normal way to say it.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Just because I was an ESL teacher doesn't mean I enjoyed the Hyman
Kaplan stories."

I see young Daniels there at the back of the class jumping up and down
in schoolboy glee in the hope that Teacher cannot answer his trick question.
Naught, naughty that he should have such wicked thoughts.

Is that a claim that "teacher" _can't_ answer the question?
If one of his private-tutored Chinese students asked him about the
construction, what would he say?

That it is messy and there is a discussion to be read:-
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/47584/sentence-construction-just-because-does-not-mean

The discussion begins with a red herring ("that/it") and finally gets to '
someone who says that the problem is exactly what I said in the first
place -- it's unparsable; there is no analysis of why it might have become
the normal way to say it.

Maybe it started as
I was an ESL teacher. That doesn't mean I enjoyed the Hyman Kaplan stories.
but now it's just an idiom
Just because X it doesn't mean Y (it mean Z)

[S K]

Post by s***@my-deja.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels
English has a wealth of topicalization devices that don't involve adding words.
Quite a few were catalogued by Haj Ross in his 1967 Chomsky-dissertation,
which quickly became the Bible of Generative Semantics.
I don't believe he used the term "topicalization." He was looking for "Constraints
on Variables in Syntax."

And rhubarb, rhubarb to you too.

big bad linguists use words that LOOK learned ("topicalization") that mean nothing or can be expressed better with everyday words.

[s***@my-deja.com]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by ***@gmail.com
The following is an excerpt of the editorial from
<quote>
Arguably more important than the actual cuts is the signal that the government is sending: unlike science,
maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority.
The letter to the OfS from Mr Williamson pointed to “further reductions in future years”.
No wonder artists and musicians including Jarvis Cocker are protesting loudly.
</quote>
In the first sentence above, the "Arguably more important than the actual cuts" is predicative,
The signal, which the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering,
technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority, is arguably more important than the actual cuts.
Am I right?

Your comma and "which" are wrong, your understanding of the "arguably"
phrase is correct, and your reordering is impossibly confusing.

Do you mean that in this case, where the subject is very long, inversion is an inevitable grammatical trick?

Where the sentence is long and complicated, as in this case, it is not a bad idea to bring the main point
to the beginning, so that it can be borne in mind during the time you are reading the other elements.

[[e-mail]]

Post by ***@gmail.com
<quote>
Arguably more important than the actual cuts is the signal that the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority. The letter to the OfS from Mr Williamson pointed to “further reductions in future years”. No wonder artists and musicians including Jarvis Cocker are protesting loudly.
</quote>
The signal, which the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority, is arguably more important than the actual cuts.
Am I right?

The signal which the government is sending--unlike science, maths, veterinary studies,

If punctuated like this, I think *which* should be replaced with *that*:

The signal that ...

engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority--is arguably
more important than the actual cuts.
I hope you can see why the original version is better.
--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by ***@gmail.com
<quote>
Arguably more important than the actual cuts is the signal that the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority. The letter to the OfS from Mr Williamson pointed to “further reductions in future years”. No wonder artists and musicians including Jarvis Cocker are protesting loudly.
</quote>
The signal, which the government is sending: unlike science, maths, veterinary studies, engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority, is arguably more important than the actual cuts.
Am I right?

The signal which the government is sending--unlike science, maths, veterinary studies,

The signal that ...

Many American editors agree with you. Most Americans don't pay any attention, and
as I've learned here in a.u.e., in other countries even most editors don't pay attention.

It's somewhat more important not to have the comma.

Post by ***@gmail.com

engineering, technology and nursing, the arts are not a strategic priority--is arguably
more important than the actual cuts.

...