Re: OT: Suggestion for next Debian release
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:27:08PM +1030, Tom Cook wrote:
> "Eric G. Miller" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:09:06PM +1030, Tom Cook wrote:
> > > Tony Crawford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tom Cook wrote (on 18 Feb 2002 at 10:41):
> > > >
> > > > > [You should be more optimistic.] There is no interest here in
> > > > > ridiculing anyone, even less someone who formulates his
> > > > > criticisms and suggestions constructively.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here endeth the lesson. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > How much is less than no interest?
> > >
> > > This is a good point, and one which I in fact considered while writing
> > > the message. Although it appears non-sensical to say 'even less' than
> > > no interest this is a fairly well accepted usage in various idioms. The
> > > usage is in fact meant to bring to the reader's mind the very question
> > > you have asked; if there is no interest in X, how much must we dislike
> > > Y?
> >
> > The problem isn't "even less", but the subsequent "someone". What is
> > an "even less someone"? There should be a period (or at least
> > semicolon) after "anyone". Then, "even less, if criticisms and
> > suggestions are constructive." The circumlocution of putting
> > "constructively" at the end when it modifies "formulates" is all
> > unnecessary verbiage.
> >
> > "We have no interest in ridiculing anyone. Even less, if their
> > criticisms and suggestions are constructive."
> >
> > "Even less" than "no interest" is an understated emphatic, but
> > "especially if/when" would probably work better.
>
> I disagree here. I am no English scholar, although I take a casual
> interest in keeping my own English correct, and I lack the terminology
> to properly describe this, but I think that, where a sentence has two
> main clauses, it is valid to omit almost any part of the second main
> clause. These parts are then assumed to be identical to the same parts
> in the first main clause. Thus:
Well, I'm no English scholar, and you are correct about being able
to omit parts in a clause. But, the whole purpose of writing is
communication. When you start omitting explicit references in
clauses, you better be damn sure of your subject-verb-object
agreement between the clauses. Otherwise, the implied subject
or object becomes ambiguous.
Check it:
The perfume that her body exhaled was of the quality of that
earth-flesh, fungi, which smells of captured dampness and yet
is so dry, overcast with the odour of oil of amber, which is
an inner malady of the sea, making her seem as if she had
invaded a sleep incautious and entire.
-- Djuna Barnes, _Nightwood_ 1936
That's a complicated sentence construction, but there's no
confusion about where the subjects and objects are (even if
you do have to read it more than once to grok). The short
form is, "she smelled like a mushroom".
--
Eric G. Miller <egm2@jps.net>
Reply to: