More on substituting

[Joel S. Berson]

I too can understand reversed substitute where the reversal and
intended meaning are obvious.  But a reversed substitute in a
mathematical or computer programming context can lead to deaths.

Joel

At 8/14/2011 01:22 PM, Arnold Zwicky wrote:
>On Aug 14, 2011, at 9:45 AM, Ron Butters wrote:
> >
> > Well, the reversal does not [completely miscommunicate
> 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.
>
>what we're confronting here is a phenomenon i've called (on Language
>Log) "intransigence". Goncharoff and Lighter have their own variety
>of English, in which reversed "substitute" has no place.  so they're
>insisting on understanding other people's varieties in terms of
>their own, disregarding other people's clear intent -- essentially,
>intransigently *refusing* to understand. (this is uncooperative and
>inconsiderate as well as silly -- especially silly when the usage
>seems to be spreading fast in the U.S., in contexts well beyond its
>original British sporting context.)
>
>(i don't *use* reversed "substitute" myself, but, like any
>reasonably cooperative person, i've figured out how to understand it.)
>
>The Goncharoff-Lighter (and, earlier, Berson) objection to reversed
>"substitute" is the same as the objection to "double negation" as
>involving people's saying the opposite of what they mean, which
>mavkes it look like willful pig-ignorance.
>
> >
> > ------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:
> >
> >> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> >> -----------------------
> >> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >> Poster:       Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at GMAIL.COM>
> >> Subject:      Re: More on substituting
> >>
> >>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> 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.
>
>potential ambiguity is part of what you're complaining about -- the
>very complaint leveled against some of the items on my list (most
>famously, "literally" and "hopefully").
>
>(some of the others are labeled pleonastic.  but the peeve
>literature labels all of them as simply ungrammatical, and some
>writers then go on to say that that makes them incomprehensible.)
>
>arnold
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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