On Richard Jensen's Examples....as an Example of the CurrentGeneral Discussion.
James Bass
JamesBass at PRODIGY.NET
Tue Nov 3 11:48:56 CST 1998
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_01BE071F.F02B4220
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Well, Dick, I'll try to do this quickly in hopes that you folks get back to
the subject of the list so I can learn something about systematics.
[a] Rewriting your example to "The committee members are..." changes
'members' to being the very clearly plural subject with 'committee' being
the modifier. And, you think it does not change "...the situation
appreciably"? Syntactical gymnastics [as opposed to preservation of
grammar] still won't preserve your indulgence in analogy of the second
sentence to the first because they always result in a change of the role
for the word 'committee'.
Believe me, English can't take this kind of manipulation. Blame it on the
scholars of the 17th and 18th century (when Latin was the language of
Oxford and Cambridge) when they forced Latin grammar on a language that
came from non-Romantic roots.
b] The next examples of "The family Fagaceae...", "The baseball team the
Chicago cubs...", "The football team...", "The man he was very old..."
mixes lots of apples, oranges, and pineapples. These differ by language
root and hence its use of grammar, category level in Ryle's sense, 'type'
in the Russell sense, and still not recognizing that English can't be
subjected to the easy manipulation that Latin words accept readily. (Now,
I've added an anthropomorphic nature to the grammar! Yuck!)
[c] In using the grammar book you use maybe the word 'popular' in the sense
that it is to 'appeal to a wider audience' is the operative difference.
Maybe one that focuses on the use of grammar in the relevant language (no
matter how 'popular' it is with the audience) would be more useful. My
experience is that 'popular' means something that will satisfy most of the
constituency (academic or otherwise) and that almost always means
sacrificing rigor. [Little smilely thing goes here!]
[d] Your statement that "It must be nice to work in a system in which the
basic entities are static and unchanging, despite paradigm shifts." missed
the point that in such fields as physics (finding new...and cutesy-- names
for sub-atomic particles and or cosmic revelations is a function of the
paradigm shift) and in economics [where lists of hundreds of thousands of
categories and "economic taxa" --which are dull and hardly as cutsey as
physics---can be altered with a new definition of the national accounts,
shifts in the structure of industrial production or occupation creation or
loss, or shifts in internationally traded commodities {the last time I
looked a few years back there were 12,000 types--by function-- of watches
being traded internationally and technology change will add more and drop
some from the list}. And, of course, a paradigm shift such as market or
non-market, Marxian or non-Marxian, etc.]. ...and I sincerely apologize
for the last sentence being so structured that it is almost
incomprehensible.
So, the basic entities [classifications] DO NOT remain 'static and
unchanging' in either field.
[e} Please! Why not get this discussion back to trying to solve the
fundamental differences in the 'analysis' which leads to the grammatical
squabbles and not focus on the grammar which is merely derivative of the
true differences in approach to the field? Excuse me, but there should be
"No grammatical representation without true taxa-ation!" ...hopefully
no one wishes to put up with this anymore!
Jim Bass
----------
From: Richard Jensen <rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM <TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: Re: On Richard Jensen's Examples....as an Example of the
CurrentGeneral Discussion.
Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 1:32 PM
James Bass wrote:
> (1) In the 'correction' below, Richard Jensen introduces other
> problems. "Committee" is used in different ways in the two sentences
> (which is why the second sounds so clumsy). In the first, it is the
> subject of the sentence; in the second it is the object of a
> (partially missing) prepositional phrase which modifies a subject
> which is also missing [following the example given in his explanatory
> paragraph].
OK, I'll rephrase my example to read "The committee members are
representatives..." with members being the implicit portion. Of course,
now the word committee becomes a noun in apposition. I still don't
think it changes the situation appreciably.
[>
> Why would anyone drop the subject and part of the modifying
> prepositional phrase? So, my initial reading of the second sentence
> was maintaining the word "committee" as the subject (as in the first
> sentence) and I assumed it was grammatically incorrect as the missing
> phrase was "made up of" and thus "committee" would still require a
> singular verb in the sentence "The committee is made up of
> representatives...". [Dropping this weaker modifier is much less
> clumsy than the rather forced construction of dropping the subject and
> part of its modifier.] In sum, in your example, your sentence has no
> subject....just the object of a prepositional phrase as surrogate for
> the subject it modifies. Why?
Why? One reason is to avoid unnecessary redundancy. Why say "The
family Fagaceae..."? By convention, Fagaceae is defined as a family, so
it is unnecessary to include the initial phrase. I guess sportswriters
could always write things like "The baseball team the Chicago Cubs..."
or "The football team the Green Bay Packers...", etc., but that creates
a very cumbersome form of writing and reminds me of the rule that says
we should avoid things such as "The man he was very old..." (either man
or he is implicit in the grammatically preferred constructions: "He was
very old" or "The man was very old").
[c] Do you really believe that most of this discussion has enhanced
'effective communication'? I offer the exchange between you and me as
evidence that it has not. Nothing about the advance of meaningful
taxonomic distinction has been gained. If you want 'diversions' about
grammar there are plenty of listserves for that activity.
>
> (2) I said what is above because I grew up learning U.S. English.
> The British do use the plural verb form with collective nouns. [See
> The Little, Brown Handbook, Instructor's Annotated Edition, Sixth
> Edition, p. 231. Oh yes, and note that Little and Brown are not
> descriptive modifiers.]
>
> (3) A lot of confusion in this whole discussion rests in the use of
> 'collective nouns' in different ways. One of the most reputable
> sources [Fowler's Modern English Usage] distinguishes seven [7] types
> of collective nouns and in a rather laconic explanation outlines the
> rules of agreement.
I use a "popular" reference quite often. It is "The Writer's Hotline
Handbook" by Montgomery and Stratton.
> (5) Please return to beating up on categories for taxa. Hey, I'm an
> economist who started following this list about 8 months ago as I have
> to work with taxa as inputs into some model building in which I'm
> engaged. Thus, for me; you're the experts on which I rely for
> 'data'. I didn't expect agreement among you folks but I at least
> could follow your disagreements easier when they were in the realm of
> the biological and not the grammatical. You'll never solve the
> problems of the lack of congruence of Romantic and Hellenic grammar
> and of the bastard stepchild, English, being an Indo-Teutonic language
> with a forced Romantic grammar system imposed upon it. [Where's
> Chomsky when we really need him?]
Effective communication is a necessity in all disciplines. In this
thread we are discussing a minor aspect of the proper way to construct
our communications. It may not be very interesting for many, but I find
it an entertaining "diversion" from some of the more general questions
debated here.
>
>
> ....and I have sat on my hands to keep from writing on the fact that
> other fields (physics, economics, etc.) don't have a problem in
> renaming entities when the paradigm changes. Much of what I've seen
> in the recent taxa discussion dealt with different paradigm [and
> please don't jump on my using the p-word as both singular and plural]
> into which you are now forcing a discussion of grammar to try to solve
> your differences. Grammar should be a tool of explanation but will
> never solve the problems of differences in paradigm...or even category
> level (again, in the Ryle sense).
I guess we biologists will have to continue our physics envy (and
perhaps add economics envy as well). It must be nice to work in a
system in which the basic entities are static and unchanging, despite
paradigm shifts.
Cheers,
Dick Jensen
--
Richard J. Jensen TEL: 219-284-4674
Department of Biology FAX: 219-284-4716
Saint Mary's College E-mail: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Notre Dame, IN 46556 http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen
------=_NextPart_000_01BE071F.F02B4220
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000080" face=3D"Arial">Well, Dick, I'll try to do this quickly =
in hopes that you folks get back to the subject of the list so I can =
learn something about systematics.<br><br>[a] Rewriting your =
example to "The committee members are..." changes =
'members' to being the very clearly plural subject with 'committee' =
being the modifier. And, you think it does not change =
"...the situation appreciably"? Syntactical gymnastics =
[as opposed to preservation of grammar] still won't preserve your =
indulgence in analogy of the second sentence to the first because they =
always result in a change of the role for the word =
'committee'.<br><br>Believe me, English can't take this kind of =
manipulation. Blame it on the scholars of the 17th and 18th =
century (when Latin was the language of Oxford and Cambridge) when =
they forced Latin grammar on a language that came from non-Romantic =
roots. <br><br><font size=3D2>b] The next examples of =
"The family Fagaceae...", "The baseball team the Chicago =
cubs...", "The football team...", "The man he was =
very old..." mixes lots of apples, oranges, and pineapples. =
These differ by language root and hence its use of grammar, =
category level in Ryle's sense, 'type' in the Russell sense, and still =
not recognizing that English can't be subjected to the easy manipulation =
that Latin words accept readily. (Now, I've added an =
anthropomorphic nature to the grammar! Yuck!)<br><br>[c] In =
using the grammar book you use maybe the word 'popular' in the sense =
that it is to 'appeal to a wider audience' is the operative difference. =
Maybe one that focuses on the use of grammar in the relevant =
language (no matter how 'popular' it is with the audience) would be more =
useful. My experience is that 'popular' means something that will =
satisfy most of the constituency (academic or otherwise) and that almost =
always means sacrificing rigor. [Little smilely thing goes =
here!]<br><br>[d] Your statement that "<font color=3D"#000000">It =
must be nice to work in a<font color=3D"#000080"> <font =
color=3D"#000000">system in which the basic entities are static and =
unchanging, despite<font color=3D"#000080"> <font =
color=3D"#000000">paradigm shifts.<font color=3D"#000080">" missed =
the point that in such fields as physics (finding new...and cutesy-- =
names for sub-atomic particles and or cosmic revelations is a function =
of the paradigm shift) and in economics [where lists of hundreds of =
thousands of categories and "economic taxa" --which are dull =
and hardly as cutsey as physics---can be altered with a new definition =
of the national accounts, shifts in the structure of industrial =
production or occupation creation or loss, or shifts in internationally =
traded commodities {the last time I looked a few years back there were =
12,000 types--by function-- of watches being traded internationally and =
technology change will add more and drop some from the list}. And, =
of course, a paradigm shift such as market or non-market, Marxian or =
non-Marxian, etc.]. ...and I sincerely apologize for the last =
sentence being so structured that it is almost =
incomprehensible.<br><br>So, the basic entities [classifications] DO NOT =
remain 'static and unchanging' in either field.<br><br>[e} Please! =
Why not get this discussion back to trying to solve the =
fundamental differences in the 'analysis' which leads to the grammatical =
squabbles and not focus on the grammar which is merely derivative of the =
true differences in approach to the field? Excuse me, but =
there should be "No grammatical representation without true =
taxa-ation!" ...hopefully no one wishes to =
put up with this anymore! =
&=
nbsp; &n=
bsp; &nb=
sp; &nbs=
p;  =
; Jim Bass =
&=
nbsp; <font color=3D"#000000"><br><font size=3D2 =
color=3D"#000080"><br><br><font color=3D"#000000">----------<br>From: =
Richard Jensen <<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">><br>To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM =
<<font color=3D"#0000FF"><u>TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU</u><font =
color=3D"#000000">><br>Subject: Re: On Richard Jensen's =
Examples....as an Example of the CurrentGeneral Discussion.<br>Date: =
Tuesday, November 03, 1998 1:32 PM<br><br>James Bass wrote:<br><br>> =
(1) In the 'correction' below, Richard Jensen introduces =
other<br>> problems. "Committee" is used in different =
ways in the two sentences<br>> (which is why the second sounds so =
clumsy). In the first, it is the<br>> subject of the sentence; =
in the second it is the object of a<br>> (partially missing) =
prepositional phrase which modifies a subject<br>> which is also =
missing [following the example given in his explanatory<br>> =
paragraph].<br><br>OK, I'll rephrase my example to read "The =
committee members are<br>representatives..." with members being the =
implicit portion. Of course,<br>now the word committee becomes a =
noun in apposition. I still don't<br>think it changes the =
situation appreciably.<br><br><font color=3D"#000080">[<font =
color=3D"#000000">><br>> Why would anyone drop the subject and =
part of the modifying<br>> prepositional phrase? So, my initial =
reading of the second sentence<br>> was maintaining the word =
"committee" as the subject (as in the first<br>> sentence) =
and I assumed it was grammatically incorrect as the missing<br>> =
phrase was "made up of" and thus "committee" =
would still require a<br>> singular verb in the sentence "The =
committee is made up of<br>> representatives...". =
[Dropping this weaker modifier is much less<br>> clumsy than =
the rather forced construction of dropping the subject and<br>> part =
of its modifier.] In sum, in your example, your sentence has =
no<br>> subject....just the object of a prepositional phrase as =
surrogate for<br>> the subject it modifies. Why?<br><br>Why? =
One reason is to avoid unnecessary redundancy. Why say =
"The<br>family Fagaceae..."? By convention, Fagaceae is =
defined as a family, so<br>it is unnecessary to include the initial =
phrase. I guess sportswriters<br>could always write things like =
"The baseball team the Chicago Cubs..."<br>or "The =
football team the Green Bay Packers...", etc., but that =
creates<br>a very cumbersome form of writing and reminds me of the rule =
that says<br>we should avoid things such as "The man he was very =
old..." (either man<br>or he is implicit in the grammatically =
preferred constructions: "He was<br>very old" or "The man =
was very old").<br><br><font color=3D"#000080">[c] Do you =
really believe that most of this discussion has enhanced 'effective =
communication'? I offer the exchange between you and me as =
evidence that it has not. Nothing about the advance of meaningful =
taxonomic distinction has been gained. If you want =
'diversions' about grammar there are plenty of listserves for that =
activity.<font color=3D"#000000"><br>><br>> (2) I said what =
is above because I grew up learning U.S. English.<br>> The British do =
use the plural verb form with collective nouns. [See<br>> The =
Little, Brown Handbook, Instructor's Annotated Edition, Sixth<br>> =
Edition, p. 231. Oh yes, and note that Little and Brown are =
not<br>> descriptive modifiers.]<br>><br>> (3) A lot of =
confusion in this whole discussion rests in the use of<br>> =
'collective nouns' in different ways. One of the most =
reputable<br>> sources [Fowler's Modern English Usage] distinguishes =
seven [7] types<br>> of collective nouns and in a rather laconic =
explanation outlines the<br>> rules of agreement.<br><br>I use a =
"popular" reference quite often. It is "The =
Writer's Hotline<br>Handbook" by Montgomery and =
Stratton.<br><br>> (5) Please return to beating up on =
categories for taxa. Hey, I'm an<br>> economist who started =
following this list about 8 months ago as I have<br>> to work with =
taxa as inputs into some model building in which I'm<br>> engaged. =
Thus, for me; you're the experts on which I rely for<br>> =
'data'. I didn't expect agreement among you folks but I at =
least<br>> could follow your disagreements easier when they were in =
the realm of<br>> the biological and not the grammatical. =
You'll never solve the<br>> problems of the lack of congruence =
of Romantic and Hellenic grammar<br>> and of the bastard stepchild, =
English, being an Indo-Teutonic language<br>> with a forced Romantic =
grammar system imposed upon it. [Where's<br>> Chomsky when we =
really need him?]<br><br>Effective communication is a necessity in all =
disciplines. In this<br>thread we are discussing a minor aspect of =
the proper way to construct<br>our communications. It may not be =
very interesting for many, but I find<br>it an entertaining =
"diversion" from some of the more general questions<br>debated =
here.<br><br>><br>><br>> ....and I have sat on my hands to keep =
from writing on the fact that<br>> other fields (physics, economics, =
etc.) don't have a problem in<br>> renaming entities when the =
paradigm changes. Much of what I've seen<br>> in the recent =
taxa discussion dealt with different paradigm [and<br>> please don't =
jump on my using the p-word as both singular and plural]<br>> into =
which you are now forcing a discussion of grammar to try to =
solve<br>> your differences. Grammar should be a tool of =
explanation but will<br>> never solve the problems of differences in =
paradigm...or even category<br>> level (again, in the Ryle =
sense).<br><br>I guess we biologists will have to continue our physics =
envy (and<br>perhaps add economics envy as well). It must be nice =
to work in a<br>system in which the basic entities are static and =
unchanging, despite<br>paradigm shifts.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Dick =
Jensen<br><br>--<br>Richard J. Jensen =
&=
nbsp;TEL: 219-284-4674<br>Department of Biology =
FAX: 219-284-4716<br>Saint Mary's College =
E-mail: <font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>rjensen at saintmarys.edu</u><font =
color=3D"#000000"><br>Notre Dame, IN 46556 =
<font =
color=3D"#0000FF"><u>http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen</u><font =
color=3D"#000000"></p>
</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></f=
ont></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font=
></font></font></body></html>
------=_NextPart_000_01BE071F.F02B4220--
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list