Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 15:09:26 +0000
Reply-To: sashole@bellsouth.net
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Paul Dorfman <paul_dorfman@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Your opinion is solicited on the statement "you use SAS
because
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>From: Robert Stratton <rstratton@PHD.CO.UK>
>
>Paul
>
>Thats the thing with old languages, there are sayings, idioms and
>quotations from ancient books that are accepted, known and used but
>don't necessarily meet the current grammatical schema.
Robert,
Absolutely, and I have enver questioned that. The question I had was rather
whether it is reasonable to use old-grammar idioms as a framework for
coining new expressions by means of a simple mechanical substitution. Some
of them lend themselves eagerly to such transformations; others do not. It
may to a degree depend on the grammatical clarity of the original saying.
Phrases like the one we have been discussing deviate so far from the modern
language structure that they perhaps should be better used as a whole.
>And modern
>English is being redefined by people in India, Africa, even the US, so
>I'd be the last person to make a judgement afgainst someone else's
>version. The only criticism one could reasonably level at these
>people is that its not good selling to use a version thats not broadly
>accepted in their desired market. But then there are a lot of
>American companies in the UK who are using their 'z's and missing
>their 'u's.
On this head, one might find it curious that the US market, and especially
the female part of its population, finds the British accent quite appealing,
judging from the degree of its exploitation by marketeers on TV, radio, etc.
I can even say that sometimes I indulge in the rather pleasant inclination
of switching from a US to UK spell-checker, in particular in my
communications with good chaps from across the Pond.
>
>Anyway, I guess we all share the saying about people who live in glass
>houses.
Yes.
Kind regards,
------------------------------
Paul M. Dorfman
Jacksonville, FL
------------------------------
>
>paul_dorfman@HOTMAIL.COM (Paul Dorfman) wrote in message
>news:<BAY2-F115CSP69IJCJ00000fbcd@hotmail.com>...
> > >From: Robert Stratton <rstratton@PHD.CO.UK>
> > >
> > >I'm reasonably sure that 99% of the English speaking world knows the
> > >saying "two wrongs do not a right make", and has also read countless
> > >derivations like the one you quote. Probably best to check your own
> > >lingusitic prowess first?
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > Sure it is. Let us see. First, let us assume that the expression goes
> > against the basic rules of the English language (even permitting
>reasonable
> > inversions) and places the predicate *last*, that is, represents an
> > inversion of the phrase
> >
> > "Two wrongs do not make a right".
> >
> > In this case, you are correct, and basically "wrongs" and "right" can be
> > substituted by any two objects with opposite qualities. However, I
>suspect
> > that the expression does not go that far and instead is structured as
> >
> > "[Two wrongs] [do] [not a right] [make]",
> >
> > which can be rephrased as
> >
> > "Two wrongs <produce not> <a right thing>.
> >
> > With this interpretation, plugging a deliberate stuff instead of "wrong"
>and
> > "right" becomes questionable, since now, "right" is the "thing"'s
>adjective,
> > and as any person marginally literate in linguistics knows, replacing a
> > single-word adjective with a complex adjective construction (like "full
> > properly powered study") runs a risk of drastically reducing the clarity
>of
> > the whole phrase by making the reader select between many possible
> > associations between its tokens.
> >
> > I doubt that the creators of the site have gone any lengths at all or
>even
> > had a passing thought about the grammar. Them having paid any serious
> > linguistic attention to the phrase I tried to dissect would be quite
> > inconsistent with the utter illiteracy manifested in the rest of the
>text.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > ------------------------------
> > Paul M. Dorfman
> > Jacksonville, FL
> > ------------------------------
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >paul_dorfman@HOTMAIL.COM (Paul Dorfman) wrote in message
> > >news:<BAY2-F154QmBuq3dLLJ0000ba64@hotmail.com>...
> > > > >From: Roger Lustig <trovato@BELLATLANTIC.NET>
> > > > >
> > > > >--If you don't believe there's something to my previous point, then
> > > > >please explain what this means: "Our competent statisticians can
> > > > >explain their methodologies using their own qualifications without
> > > > >giving reference to an off source."
> > > >
> > > > Roger,
> > > >
> > > > I have tried hard to abstainfrom this, uhm... unprofessionalizm, but
> > finally
> > > > your choice of example has got me fired up. If you had looked harder
>at
> > the
> > > > site Bob referenced, you would have found this perl:
> > > >
> > > > "Two underpowered studies do not a full properly powered study
>make."
> > > >
> > > > Candidly, I am at lost about the origin of the creators of this
> > linguistic
> > > > diamond. Surely not Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, or any other Slavic
> > tongue.
> > > > If it were, it would look more like
> > > >
> > > > "Two underpowered studies not compensate for one complete properly
> > powered
> > > > study".
> > > >
> > > > Still flawed, but at least comprehensible. I guess what I am trying
>to
> > > > convey to the authors of the page is:
> > > >
> > > > "Everything from SAS/STAT competent your statisticians in heartbeat
>with
> > > > their pocket can program using calculator. Ok, one properly full
> > powdered
> > > > study me show two underpowdered studies do not a full properly
>powdered
> > > > study make".
> > > >
> > > > Deal?
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > -----------------------------------
> > > > Paul M. Dorfman
> > > > Jacksonville, FL
> > > > -----------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
> > > > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
| 
