posted
Jon Boy, I really don't want to argue grammar with you but it seems like you aren't even trying to understand what I say.
For example, you say
quote:You said that the "or" is wrong because it would make "$100" the object of two prepositions, but that's incorrect, because there's no reason why a noun can't be the object of two coordinated preposition.
It makes me wonder if you even finished reading the sentence which goes on to explain that the two prepositions in question are not coordinated.
Then you say
quote:But the "or", if you're assuming it's deliberate, does not coordinate "for" and "than"—it coordinates "for" and "less", a preposition and an adjective (not a noun, as you said earlier).
Which is a simple repetition of my analysis except your claim that "less" is and adjective. According to the OED "less" can be either an adjective or a noun. In the phrase "for less than $100", is it not acting as a noun and the object of the preposition?
quote:Your "understanding" is just as much a presumption as mine. And I happen to think mine is much more justifiable and likely to be true, since I find it highly unlikely that a competent English speaker would intend to create such a bizarre non-parallelism, as you claim, and infinitely more likely that he made a typo and was distracted from the actual problem by your unnecessary rewording and erroneous grammatical explanation..
I don't understand your hostility Jon Boy. I've agreed that your interpretation is legitimate possibility. Why can't you admit that mine is as well even though several other posters came to the same conclusion.
And by the way, Sa'eed's question to me about whether his construction was grammatically incorrect and why, came before I offered any grammatical explanation so unless you are claiming reverse causality, his question could not have arisen because of my "erroneous grammatical explanation".
Jon Boy, I genuinely respect your expertise in this area, but I do know enough grammar myself to think your criticisms of my explanation off base.
I've already aknoledged that
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Jon Boy, I really don't want to argue grammar with you but it seems like you aren't even trying to understand what I say.
For example, you say
quote:You said that the "or" is wrong because it would make "$100" the object of two prepositions, but that's incorrect, because there's no reason why a noun can't be the object of two coordinated preposition.
It makes me wonder if you even finished reading the sentence which goes on to explain that the two prepositions in question are not coordinated.
I went back and read your original post, and to be honest, it only made me more confused. You were talking about why someone's suggestion of inserting commas was wrong, but the commas don't actually do anything syntactically. But what I was responding to was your claim that the problem was that "$100" ended up as the object of two prepositions (assuming that than is one), but that's not a problem, because a noun can be the object of two prepositions.
And I can't make any sense of your explanation that "'$100' ends up being the object of two separate prepositions (for and than) one of which is joining the phrase 'for $100' to 'less' and the other of which modifies 'less'." I honestly have no idea what the last half is supposed to mean. Which one is joining "for $100" to "less", and which one is modifying "less"? I don’t even know where you were getting "for $100" from in that sentence.
quote:Then you say
quote:But the "or", if you're assuming it's deliberate, does not coordinate "for" and "than"—it coordinates "for" and "less", a preposition and an adjective (not a noun, as you said earlier).
Which is a simple repetition of my analysis except your claim that "less" is and adjective. According to the OED "less" can be either an adjective or a noun. In the phrase "for less than $100", is it not acting as a noun and the object of the preposition?
The OED doesn't say it can be a noun. It says that it can be an absolutive adjective, which it also calls a quasi-noun, but I’ve never seen any textbook use that term. An absolutive adjective basically stands in for a full noun phrase without the actually noun.
But as for repeating what you said, yes, you're right. I must've been confused (and still am, frankly) by what you said above about something (either “for” or “than”) joining "for $100" and "less".
quote:
quote:Your "understanding" is just as much a presumption as mine. And I happen to think mine is much more justifiable and likely to be true, since I find it highly unlikely that a competent English speaker would intend to create such a bizarre non-parallelism, as you claim, and infinitely more likely that he made a typo and was distracted from the actual problem by your unnecessary rewording and erroneous grammatical explanation..
I don't understand your hostility Jon Boy. I've agreed that your interpretation is legitimate possibility. Why can't you admit that mine is as well even though several other posters came to the same conclusion.
I’m sorry for the hostility. It’s probably just my frustration at the whole thread coming out. I’m frustrated that you, who have complained repeatedly about people nitpicking your typos or grammatical errors in the past, were the first to pounce when someone generally disliked had an error in a post. And then I was frustrated with all the bungled and tortured grammatical explications. I’m sorry I don’t find your interpretation likely. It’s just not the sort of thing a competent writer would do on purpose, while accidentally inserted words happen all the time.
quote:And by the way, Sa'eed's question to me about whether his construction was grammatically incorrect and why, came before I offered any grammatical explanation so unless you are claiming reverse causality, his question could not have arisen because of my "erroneous grammatical explanation".
I’m not sure how you think I’m reversing causality. I didn’t say that his question arose because of your explanation. I said that I thought he was distracted from the fact that there was a superfluous “or” by your rewrite and the ensuing grammatical explanations. I did, however, say that you were pedantic first, then he asked about the grammar, and then later he called you pedantic and you complained about him being rude, even though you started off being rude in the very first reply.
quote:Jon Boy, I genuinely respect your expertise in this area, but I do know enough grammar myself to think your criticisms of my explanation off base.
And I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. Your terminology and analysis has been confused and confusing, even when your conclusions might have been right.
I knew I was going to regret getting involved in this thread. I'm sorry I did.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, I also felt you were pretty off base in talking about my contribution. Off base and dismissive, and at several points you seemed not to have actually read what I'd written.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
