C'dale Lefty too stiff?



"41" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Paul Hobson wrote:
>
>> "Where are you at?" and "Where are you going to?" really get to me. Not
>> only is there an dangling preposition, but it's not even necessary!

>
> Since when are they necessary? Dangling prepositions are things up with
> we should not put.
>
> Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Microsoft Word:
> Telling Americans all they need to know about the language they claim
> to speak, since 1828.
>



I have the "dangling prepositions" changed every hundred hours of use on my
Cannondale Lefty, just part of the regular maintenance schedule.
 
On 23 Feb 2006 04:18:38 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Edumacation in the USA is not in good shape.


Back when I got my first management job I ran a systems programming
department. Even then (1970s) programmers were notorious for their
horrible writing. One of my first orders of business was to have all
written material intended for marketing, sales, or corporate
management consumption routed through me for review. I figured they
wouldn't take us seriously if we couldn't construct coherent
documents.

Things seem to have degenerated in the succeeding quarter century.
Some of the stuff that appears here is practically unreadable. For
example, have you ever tried to decipher datakoll's contributions?
;-)


jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
 
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:38:23 -0500, Paul Hobson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Where are you at?" and "Where are you going to?" really get to me. Not
>only is there an dangling preposition, but it's not even necessary!


When I first moved to the midwest (Ann Arbor, Michigan) I would
sometimes hear my administrative assistant say things like, "I don't
know where he's at." on the phone. I tried to gently correct her as we
did a lot of business with our Boston and London offices and I thought
it sounded ignorant. After being in Michigan for a while I just sort
of accepted the dangling preposition as a midwesternism.

My girlfriend, a schoolteacher with a double masters, raised in
Illinois, does the same thing. I keep my mouth shut but to me it still
grates a bit like fingernails on a blackboard.


jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
 
Make sure the lock out is off, I forgot about this on my fox fork and
was about to return it.
 
[email protected] wrote (TO??? OF??? ABOUT???):

> Thanks very much. These other folks have way too much time on their
> hands. They should be riding instead of being pedantic!


OK, anyone who uses the word "pedantic" (not necessarily appropriately in
this case, as saying "your bike sucks" is hardly erudite) SHOULD BE SMART
ENOUGH TO QUOTE that to which he or she is replying.

Bill "now THAT's pedantic (in a Usenetty sense of the word)" S.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
John Everett <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:38:23 -0500, Paul Hobson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Where are you at?" and "Where are you going to?" really get to me. Not
> >only is there an dangling preposition, but it's not even necessary!

>
> When I first moved to the midwest (Ann Arbor, Michigan) I would
> sometimes hear my administrative assistant say things like, "I don't
> know where he's at." on the phone. I tried to gently correct her as we
> did a lot of business with our Boston and London offices and I thought
> it sounded ignorant. After being in Michigan for a while I just sort
> of accepted the dangling preposition as a midwesternism.
>
> My girlfriend, a schoolteacher with a double masters, raised in
> Illinois, does the same thing. I keep my mouth shut but to me it still
> grates a bit like fingernails on a blackboard.


Grammar is not learned best in the classroom. One learns
grammar while reading everything that comes your way. Then
comes the challenge of expressing ones thoughts on paper,
and we learn how bad we are at it. Damn, thos old writers
are good. Reading Jane Austen I would sometimes stop and
go over one sentence several times to see what she was
doing and how she did it. I understood perfectly what she
conveyed, but often could not see how I might similarly
express myself.

Programmers were mentioned in this thread. As a programmer
I saw the problem first hand. The way out is to comment
the code; not with what each line is doing, but with a
parallel reader's guide to the narrative of the code. This
endeavor actually helps one to write better code. Another
useful exercise is writing mathematical proofs.

--
Michael Press
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> I get that, I'm just curious to know what's funny about it. I don't
> give a monkey's about his personal opinion, I'm just curious.


What are you talking about?

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Viet Nguyen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Make sure the lock out is off, I forgot about this on my fox fork and
>> was about to return it.

>
> Hunhh?


You're confused these days, aren't you?
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
 

> That's as stupid as the press not knowing the difference between
> "momentarily" and "any moment", as in "the president will be here
> momentarily"... oh, it's too bad he can't stay for a bit. The word
> has been misused so often that the dictionary has picked it up as an
> alternate (correct) use, just as "carrot and stick" has been replaced
> by "carrot or stick" the image never having been understood by many.


I could care less about this.
 
41 wrote:
> Paul Hobson wrote:
>
>
>>"Where are you at?" and "Where are you going to?" really get to me. Not
>>only is there an dangling preposition, but it's not even necessary!

>
>
> Since when are they necessary? Dangling prepositions are things up with
> we should not put.


haha. Point obviously taken. TO clarify my examples, "at" and "to"
don't even contribute to the question that message poses. "At where are
you?" is very cumbersome (and probably incorrect).

Also, your example (purposefully, no doubt) points out something of the
American (and English in general?) vernacular that annoys me: using
several monosyllabic words, with are typically combinations of "get",
"go", "put", etc and one or more prepositions, to replace what one word
can convey.

"Dangling prepositions are things we should not tolerate" would be
rarely heard even within a group of relatively educated adults. I blame
TV. ;)

> Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and Microsoft Word:
> Telling Americans all they need to know about the language they claim
> to speak, since 1828.
>

[article snipped]

--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the f to ph to reply:.
 
JohnH wrote:
>> That's as stupid as the press not knowing the difference between
>> "momentarily" and "any moment", as in "the president will be here
>> momentarily"... oh, it's too bad he can't stay for a bit. The word
>> has been misused so often that the dictionary has picked it up as an
>> alternate (correct) use, just as "carrot and stick" has been replaced
>> by "carrot or stick" the image never having been understood by many.


> I could care less about this.


I could not.

(You do realize, of course, that you just stated that you indeed DO care
somewhat about this; otherwise, how could you care less?)

Bill "why am I here?" S.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Aw come on, get mo-derne. Replace all references to affect and effect
> with impact. That's what the news folks do because they don't know
> which one goes where. Affect is going the way of whom as in "For Who
> the Bell Tolls". You'd be surprised how many folks think that is the
> title of Ernest Hemingway's work. To who do you turn with such
> problems?


I turn to those who can impact me with solutions.

Luke
 
In article <[email protected]>, Paul Hobson
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <[email protected]
> > t>,
> > "Leo Lichtman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Ron Hardin" wrote: (clip)``whom'' can pretty much be written ``who.''
> >>It's also much safer, because most actual uses of ``whom'' are wrong, (clip)
> >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>It's called "hypercorrection." The oldest example I can recall (yes, I'm
> >>old) was Henry Aldridge, on the radio, who always said, "Are you speaking
> >>to
> >>I, Mother?"
> >>
> >>My parents were Yiddish, as were most of their friends. I still remember a
> >>man who would answer the phone with, "Zu whom am I speaking?"

> >
> >
> > As in `So, whom am I speaking to?' Correct if stilted;
> > ignoring the dangling preposition. Someone whose first
> > language keeps noun case scrupulously reconciled will seek
> > out the equivalents in English.
> >

>
> "Where are you at?" and "Where are you going to?" really get to me. Not
> only is there an dangling preposition, but it's not even necessary!
>
> And speaking while we're on the topic of hypercorrection: ever hear
> someone say something like, "To where are you going to?" Nice try,
> but...NO!
>


What's worse, dangling prepositions or dangling propositions -'Baby,
what are you up to'?

Luke
 
Sorni wrote:
> JohnH wrote:
>>> That's as stupid as the press not knowing the difference between
>>> "momentarily" and "any moment", as in "the president will be here
>>> momentarily"... oh, it's too bad he can't stay for a bit. The word
>>> has been misused so often that the dictionary has picked it up as an
>>> alternate (correct) use, just as "carrot and stick" has been
>>> replaced by "carrot or stick" the image never having been
>>> understood by many.

>
>> I could care less about this.

>
> I could not.
>
> (You do realize, of course, that you just stated that you indeed DO
> care somewhat about this; otherwise, how could you care less?)


Err.. yeah.. Read the preceding paragraph ;)

> Bill "why am I here?" S.


I don't know why you're here for.
 
Paul Hobson wrote:

>
> haha. Point obviously taken. TO clarify my examples, "at" and "to"
> don't even contribute to the question that message poses. "At where are
> you?" is very cumbersome (and probably incorrect).
>

They do add to the sentence by creating a stylistic statement. Language,
like clothes, can exhibit such.

-paul