More on substituting

[Ronald Butters]

Just to set the record straight:

1. I have never objected to one-liners. I have objected to one-liners that are devoid of content, merely phatic, and contribute nothing to the topic.

2. My purpose was not so much to complain about repetition (though I agree with Arnold) as to condemn the mindless, and linguistically ridiculous, practice of bemoaning solecisms, slips of the tongue and pen, and changes in the language--especially when one does so in the inflated language of anguish and "nightmare." 

3. I don't remember ever announcing a "principle" that holds that every opinion must be substantiated with "actual supporting evidence," and I'm not sure what sort of "supporting evidence" is needed to document that hand-wringing (and perhaps pearl-clutching as well) about usage is not in accord with accepted scientific principles. 

I would like to add, though, that it does not seem at all clear that the "substitution reversal" in the passage that JL cited represents a belief on the part of people at Fox News that "substitute" functions syntactically like "replace." The reversal is very much in the manner of a slip of the tongue, and (as I noted earlier) there is no reason to believe that hearers would not pretty much subconsciously interpret the utterance in the sense that was intended, rather than the nonsensical reading that gives JL nightmares. Maybe the alternative is worth some consideration, though I imagine that Arnold has given it some thought.


On Aug 14, 2011, at 1:26 PM, victor steinbok wrote:

> There appear to be multiple levels of miscommunication in the latest development on this thread. JL noted a reversal that upsets him because he thinks it fails to communicate the desired meaning--in fact, in standard interpretation, it says the opposite (hence, reversal). AZ is annoyed (mildly?) at the repetition of people expressing pet peeves about subjects that have been previously covered and rehashed (in this case, anywhere from 4 to 6 years ago). DG comes up suggesting that this is not simply a complaint about usage--that would indeed be quite ordinary--but about the non-standard usage that's seeped into formally edited materials, i.e., it has been tacitly accepted as standard. Thus the observation is not of new usage but of a new level of spread. Some may find this to be a more significant fact that others. 
> 
> Feel free to correct my observation above if I got any part of it wrong.
> 
> However, RB goes beyond annoyance and throws insults embedded into a one-liner--a practice that he normally condemns. There is a difference about asking to avoid repetitions and referring to someone as an "alleged linguist"--a difference that a linguist should be able to appreciate. What may come through as annoyance or dissatisfaction in a longer email becomes amplified in a short message sent from a "smart" phone. This technology appears to have made it easier for people to become thoughtless, clumsy and offensive. If a suggestion to avoid one-liners on the list is reasonable (and I am certainly guilty of my share of one-liners), doing so on a phone should be doubly so--the standard mental filters often fail because the response time is shortened significantly. So, my recommendation to Ron--and others--is to avoid sending quick responses via smart phones unless they are directly on-topic (DG's message was constructive, in contrast). It will help to tone down overheated rhetoric and certainly will not detract from the flow of the discussion.
> 
> VS-)
> 
> PS: I am not a linguist and don't allege to be one, thus the comment would not be insulting if it were addressed to me--it would not apply at all. However, it was /not/ addressed to me. And, I believe, that comment was uncalled for.
> 
> [RB: Thanks for this, Arnold. And all the inflated rhetoric about nightmares and the lack of intelligibility of supposed "errors" seems *particularly stupid coming from an alleged linguist*.] <-- Emphasis added.
> 
> PPS: One other practice that RB has objected to in the past--in association with all the other complaints--was someone supporting a comment made earlier (presumably without any actual supporting evidence, just an expression of raw opinion). The comment quoted above falls into this category as well--in other words, RB has violated not one, but at least three principle he has previously espoused.
> 
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Ron Butters <ronbutters at aol.com> wrote:
> 
> Well, the reversal does not "completely miss communicate information." It takes next to no thought whatever to understand the utterance in question, which is probably why the editors ( if there were editors) did not notice the reversal. 
> 
> Sent from my Droid Charge on Verizon 4GLTE
> 
> ------Original Message------
> From: Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Date: Sunday, August 14, 2011 12:05:08 PM GMT-0400
> Subject: Re: [ADS-L] More on substituting
> 
> Dan, I could not have said it better.
> 
> JL
> 
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Do you really think the lack of intelligibility of a substitution
> > reversal is inflated?
> >
> > I am shocked that a substitution reversal could survive an editing
> > process, not because it is grammatically incorrect but because it
> > completely miscommunicates information. That could not be said about
> > any of the other items on Arnold's list. A distinction with a
> > difference.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org