I've been mostly ignoring stuff that Ilias posts, though I've idly
checked his `scary readtable' things to see when / if he finally caves
in. The latest one has
The main arguments that [+ 3 2] *can* but *must not* be executed
by a Conforming Implementation starts with...
Which looks to me like he has quietly reduced his claim to
vacuousness. Since no-one else has followed up I guess I'm the last
person reading them. (I haven't actually read the rest of the article
to see if it backs up my reading of the summary.)
(Incidentally my reading of this would lend credence to his German
origins I think. I'm assuming that the claim means essentially `may'
- a conforming implementation may do x but it does not have to do x.
This reading depends on a reading of `must not' as essentially `not
must', and I think this is quite a Germanic error in English. In (my
dialect of) English `must' works like this:
`must do x' means `it is compulsory that x is done'
`must not do x' means `it is compulsory that x is not done'
but I think (and my German is very rusty and was never very good) that
the `equivalent' (not really) German modal verb, Muessen, works as if:
`must do x' means `it is compulsory that x is done'
`must not do x' means `it is not compulsory that x is done'
I think you have to use a different modal verb (darfen?) to get the
English meaning.
I'd actually be interested to know from any native German speakers if
my understanding of the modal verb differences is anything like
correct.)
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> I'd actually be interested to know from any native German speakers
> if my understanding of the modal verb differences is anything like
> correct.)
The infinitive of `darf' is `d�rfen', but otherwise you're absolutely
correct.
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
Hello!
Nils Goesche <······@cartan.de> wrote:
>Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
>> I'd actually be interested to know from any native German speakers
>> if my understanding of the modal verb differences is anything like
>> correct.)
>The infinitive of `darf' is `d�rfen', but otherwise you're absolutely
>correct.
Right. It's a so-called preterito-present verb, where the present tense
is built like the strong past tense in other verbs, and the past tense
is built like a weak past tense of other verbs. "D�rfen" even keeps
the split between singular and plural form in its (strong past like)
present forms:
(inf.) d�rfen - (1. sg. present) ich darf - (1. pl. present) wir d�rfen -
(1. sg. past) ich durfte ...
This is unlike German strong verbs which have lost the singular/plural
split in their past tense, but like e.g. Icelandic strong verbs which
often have that split.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> `must do x' means `it is compulsory that x is done'
Just for information: Is this the same as `have to do x' ?
>
> `must do x' means `it is compulsory that x is done'
> `must not do x' means `it is not compulsory that x is done'
Right.
>
> I think you have to use a different modal verb (darfen?) to get the
> English meaning.
It should be `Du darfst X' or "Sie d�rfen X" in the sense of "You may X".
Sincerly
AHz
* Andreas Hinze wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>> `must do x' means `it is compulsory that x is done'
> Just for information: Is this the same as `have to do x' ?
Yes, I think so. I can't think of a case off the top of my head where
there are different meanings or connotations, although there probably
are some...
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote:
> * Andreas Hinze wrote:
> > Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> >> `must do x' means `it is compulsory that x is done'
> > Just for information: Is this the same as `have to do x' ?
>
> Yes, I think so. I can't think of a case off the top of my head where
> there are different meanings or connotations, although there probably
> are some...
There's a huge difference in style and formality between the two.
'Must' is used in a formal command, or in a specification. 'Have to'
would be more colloquial, and probably less firm. Someone who says "I
must go to the store," would be thought of as very stiff. OTOH, writing
"A compiler implementor has to provide tail recursion optimization," in
a spec sounds much too informal.
There's probably a relationship between the stylistic differences and
the origins of 'must' (Germanic) and 'have' (Latinate).
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
* Michael Sullivan wrote:
> There's a huge difference in style and formality between the two.
> 'Must' is used in a formal command, or in a specification. 'Have to'
> would be more colloquial, and probably less firm. Someone who says "I
> must go to the store," would be thought of as very stiff. OTOH, writing
> "A compiler implementor has to provide tail recursion optimization," in
> a spec sounds much too informal.
Oh, this is dialectical I'm sure. I don't think I would correct (on
style grounds) either. I might *well* correct one or the other in a
standards context from consistency requirements.
And, hmm. I would probably generate `I have to go to the shop'
instead of `I must go to the shop', so I have the same distinction but
it's quite faint for me. (And I would use `must' in a standard.)
Either as a command would be quite strong, what I'd probably say
instead is `you should go to the shop' or `can you go to the shop?'
(which is not a question in anything other than form in this context).
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote:
> * Michael Sullivan wrote:
> > There's a huge difference in style and formality between the two.
> > 'Must' is used in a formal command, or in a specification. 'Have to'
> > would be more colloquial, and probably less firm. Someone who says "I
> > must go to the store," would be thought of as very stiff. OTOH, writing
> > "A compiler implementor has to provide tail recursion optimization," in
> > a spec sounds much too informal.
>
> Oh, this is dialectical I'm sure.
Could be. Brits are often thought of as stiff over here. :)
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
Michael Sullivan wrote:
>
> There's a huge difference in style and formality between the two.
>
> 'Must' is used in a formal command, or in a specification. 'Have to'
> would be more colloquial, and probably less firm. Someone who says "I
> must go to the store," would be thought of as very stiff. OTOH, writing
> "A compiler implementor has to provide tail recursion optimization," in
> a spec sounds much too informal.
>
> There's probably a relationship between the stylistic differences and
> the origins of 'must' (Germanic) and 'have' (Latinate).
>
Ah, i see. Thanks for the hint.
Best
AHz
> Michael Sullivan wrote:
>>
>> There's a huge difference in style and formality between the two.
>>
>> 'Must' is used in a formal command, or in a specification. 'Have to'
>> would be more colloquial, and probably less firm. Someone who says "I
>> must go to the store," would be thought of as very stiff. OTOH, writing
>> "A compiler implementor has to provide tail recursion optimization," in
>> a spec sounds much too informal.
>>
>> There's probably a relationship between the stylistic differences and
>> the origins of 'must' (Germanic) and 'have' (Latinate).
I thought "have" was Germanic
Ich habe -> I have
The similarity is striking.
Oleg
Oleg <············@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > Michael Sullivan wrote:
> >> There's a huge difference in style and formality between the two.
> >> 'Must' is used in a formal command, or in a specification. 'Have to'
> >> would be more colloquial, and probably less firm. Someone who says "I
> >> must go to the store," would be thought of as very stiff. OTOH, writing
> >> "A compiler implementor has to provide tail recursion optimization," in
> >> a spec sounds much too informal.
> >> There's probably a relationship between the stylistic differences and
> >> the origins of 'must' (Germanic) and 'have' (Latinate).
>
> I thought "have" was Germanic
>
> Ich habe -> I have
> The similarity is striking.
You're probably right. I didn't even consider that. It certainly seems
closer than the relationship with avoir (French), which is what I was
thinking of when I wrote that. Probably PIE in origin.
The formality gap must come from "have to" being a relatively recent
English idiom. I assume it doesn't literally translate into German (I
know it doesn't into French, but don't know German well enough to say).
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) writes:
> The formality gap must come from "have to" being a relatively recent
> English idiom. I assume it doesn't literally translate into German (I
> know it doesn't into French, but don't know German well enough to say).
You can use "haben" in the sense of "have to". It is just like in
English less strict than "m�ssen"/"must".
Regards,
Julian
··········@web.de (J.St.) writes:
> ·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) writes:
>
> > The formality gap must come from "have to" being a relatively recent
> > English idiom. I assume it doesn't literally translate into German (I
> > know it doesn't into French, but don't know German well enough to say).
>
> You can use "haben" in the sense of "have to". It is just like in
> English less strict than "m�ssen"/"must".
Hmm. Could you give me a sample sentence using haben in that sense?
I'm curious what the form of the auxilary verb is.
--
If you want divine justice, die.
-- Nick Seldon
Brian Palmer <·······@rescomp.Stanford.EDU> writes:
> ··········@web.de (J.St.) writes:
>
> > ·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) writes:
> >
> > > The formality gap must come from "have to" being a relatively recent
> > > English idiom. I assume it doesn't literally translate into German (I
> > > know it doesn't into French, but don't know German well enough to say).
> >
> > You can use "haben" in the sense of "have to". It is just like in
> > English less strict than "m�ssen"/"must".
>
> Hmm. Could you give me a sample sentence using haben in that sense?
> I'm curious what the form of the auxilary verb is.
Ich habe etwas zu tun. (I have to do sth.)
finite form of "haben" + "zu"-infinitive
Regards,
Julian
··········@web.de (J.St.) writes:
> Brian Palmer <·······@rescomp.Stanford.EDU> writes:
> > Hmm. Could you give me a sample sentence using haben in that sense?
> > I'm curious what the form of the auxilary verb is.
>
> Ich habe etwas zu tun. (I have to do sth.)
>
> finite form of "haben" + "zu"-infinitive
Ah. OK, I hadn't considered that as a form of "have to do"; rather, I
have in the past read sentences like that as the more literal
translation 'I have something to do' which is something I would
readily say in English but with different connotations than 'I have to
do something'.
Guess this just reminds me to keep connotations out of the way when
reading a language I'm not particularly fluent in =)
--
If you want divine justice, die.
-- Nick Seldon
Michael Sullivan wrote:
> It certainly seems closer than the relationship with
> avoir (French), which is what I was thinking of
> when I wrote that.
Interestingly, something like "to have to" arose in Old French, or maybe
late Vulgar Latin already, and ended up in the current French future tense:
"je parler ai" - "I to-talk have" --> "je parlerai" --> "I shall talk".
--
Biep
Reply via any name whatsoever at the main domain corresponding to
http://www.biep.org
From: Reini Urban
Subject: Re: OT: German (Re: The worm turns...)
Date:
Message-ID: <3D83677B.8040703@inode.at>
Michael Sullivan schrieb:
> The formality gap must come from "have to" being a relatively recent
> English idiom. I assume it doesn't literally translate into German (I
> know it doesn't into French, but don't know German well enough to say).
No. English derived from German somewhere at the "2.Deutsche
Lautverschiebung" (historically unrelated, but an important fact).
* http://www.weikopf.de/body_germanisch.html,
* http://www.weikopf.de/lautversgermanisch.html, or see "Grimm's Law"
* http://www.weikopf.de/vernerlautverschiebung.html)
Together with the northern germanic peoples they didn't follow this new
dialect and smoothed out the worldwide highest flexic germanic family to
the almost non-flexic language worldwide. Quite similar to chinese (the
most non-flexic language) which should be is as easy to learn as english :)
Chinese is probably the most german-like language in spirit (word
centric) and english-like in form, using no flexions at all. Every word
is unmutable. The meaning is defined by the position in the sentence only.
Not using the typical latin or german word-centric flexions
introduced a whole bunch of those auxiliary and modal verbs.
(http://www.weikopf.de/Sprache/Englisch/Verlust_Flexion/verlust_flexion.html)
Older languages (indogermanic as german, slavic or greek) or arabic
favored the highly-flexive single word over the not-flexive forms such
as defining tenses or tensions by using auxiliary words. English is now
one of the less compact but simpliest languages. At least in its spoken
form. one-syllable, one-worded flexions (one-does-it-all) changed to
unflexic positional and auxiliary forms, modern "reibelaute" at the tip
of the tongue to speed up talking against the harder and stronger
"laute" to amplify the meaning, ...
BTW: That's why it's usually easier to translate english to other
languages, because their sentences are much more compact. But not for
software products: Non-english sentences needs less space, but
non-english words are usually longer and more flexive. (inner flexions
by changing vocals as in old german words or arabic, or affixes derived
from latin or greek).
"habe zu" (= m�ssen) is certainly the same as "have to" (= must), which
is an "semantic extension" to the indogermanic auxiliary verb "have"
(those times the only one), which is in fact typical to older
indogermanic languages, and not to the modern northern germanic or roman
simplifications.
So it derived from german, not the other way round. Anyway, the meaning
is the same.
The problematic difference is:
"may" : "must"
<=>
"m�chten" : "m�ssen"
to
"may not" : "must not"
<=>
(literal / actual translation)
"nicht m�chten" / "nicht m�ssen" : "nicht m�ssen" / "nicht d�rfen"
"have to" and "need" : "need not" is consistent again:
"brauchen" : "nicht brauchen, nicht m�ssen".
Knowing that english derived from german, it's for me personally a
problem with the english language, not a problem with the german
language. Why did they mix the semantics in these auxiliary verb forms?
Probably because "must" and "must not" is a strong and ultimative order
"Gebot/Verbot", whilst "may"/"may not" as well as "need"/"need not" just
a hint ("Hinweis"). English seems to be more consistent indeed.
See also
http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~torfer/filosofisenter/lister/Kant-L/Kant-L-Feb-1998/0037.html
for problems related to this inconsistency regarding translations of
important german philosophers.
--
Reini Urban - Programmer - http://inode.at
"Reini Urban" <······@inode.at> wrote in message
·····················@inode.at...
> Knowing that english derived from german,
Not to quibble, but, this is, in the strictest sense, false.
It is much like saying that humans are descended from apes,
when in fact they are descended from a common (admittedly
ape-like) ancestor, which no longer exists.
Similarly, English and German are both descended from a
proto-Germanic tongue which existed perhaps ca. 1c. CE.
(bearing approximately the same relationship to German as
Latin does to Italian). This language no longer exists, and is
only arguably more German-like than English-like (except
in vocabulary, where English has greatly diverged).
-James Russell
Hello!
Oleg <············@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>[...]
>I thought "have" was Germanic
>Ich habe -> I have
>The similarity is striking.
Right. It is Germanic, like in (Old and Modern) Icelandic "hafa", but
it might also be cognate to lat. habere.
Kind regards,
Hannah.
Hannah Schroeter skrev:
> Right. It is Germanic, like in (Old and Modern) Icelandic
> "hafa", but it might also be cognate to lat. habere.
The Latin cognate of <have> and <haben> is <carpe>. Just like
Latin <cornu> is a cognate of English <horn>.
--
Torsten
Oleg <············@myrealbox.com> writes:
> I thought "have" was Germanic
>
> Ich habe -> I have
>
> The similarity is striking.
Indeed, but so is the similarity to the Latin ``Habeo'' :-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: OT: German (Re: The worm turns...)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3admp1zan.fsf@cley.com>
* Nils Goesche wrote:
> Indeed, but so is the similarity to the Latin ``Habeo'' :-)
Yes. But does latin *have* modal verbs? I *think* it doesn't, it has
some inflected form of the main verb instead, but I am not at all
sure.
Obviously, quite apart from this, this sense of `have' is not a modal
verb in any normal sense. I don't know what it is, in fact - `have to
x' is not like `should x' at all. Can you say anything like this in
German? Or Latin for that matter? I suspect that Latin only has
possessive `have'. And I probably have to stop because I have no idea
what this has to do with Lisp, even if it once has had anything.
(which unsuccessfully self-referential sentence reminds me of the
famous silly thing: `Where James had had had William had had had had
had had had had the examiners' approval' - this is only funny when you
leave most of the punctuation out...)
--tim
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Nils Goesche wrote:
>
> > Indeed, but so is the similarity to the Latin ``Habeo'' :-)
>
> Yes. But does latin *have* modal verbs? I *think* it doesn't, it has
> some inflected form of the main verb instead, but I am not at all
> sure.
It doesn't use `habere' to build Perfect Tense; here English looks
much more like German.
> Obviously, quite apart from this, this sense of `have' is not a modal
> verb in any normal sense. I don't know what it is, in fact - `have to
> x' is not like `should x' at all. Can you say anything like this in
> German?
For `have to X' you just say `mu� X'. `Should X' is `sollte X'.
Maybe `have to X' is an abbreviation of something like `have (the
obligation) to do X'. That would be fine in German, too: `habe die
Pflicht, X zu tun'.
There is also ``Das habe ich nicht zu entscheiden'', which means
rather ``It is not up to me to decide this'' than ``I don't have to
decide this''. But ``Das habe ich zu entscheiden'' means indeed
something like ``I have to make this decision'', although, to my ears,
there is always a strange connotation of ``according to the proper
chain of command'' or something in it :-)
Regards,
--
Nils Goesche
"Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
PGP key ID 0x0655CFA0
> For `have to X' you just say `mu� X'.
It may be worth considering that English infinitive forms begin with
"to ", so the infinitive for the "am/is/are" verb is "to be".
In your example, X is the bare verb in the English, but the infinitive
in the German, if I understand correctly. So perhaps a better analogy
would be 'have X' ~ 'mu� X'. That gets us around trying to use 'have'
as a preposition.
Just a thought; I'm no linguist.
Cheers,
joelh
Nils Goesche wrote:
> Oleg <············@myrealbox.com> writes:
>
>> I thought "have" was Germanic
>>
>> Ich habe -> I have
>>
>> The similarity is striking.
>
> Indeed, but so is the similarity to the Latin ``Habeo'' :-)
According to Etymology Duden, "haben" is not related to the Latin
"habere", but it _is_ related to English "have" and Swedish "hava".
--
Wolfgang Mederle
$BONMOT
Michael Sullivan wrote:
> There's probably a relationship between the stylistic differences and
> the origins of 'must' (Germanic) and 'have' (Latinate).
In that sense, in Latin one would normally use either "debere" or a phrase
with e.g. "necesse est", depending, roughly corresponding to the French
"devoir" and "il faut", respectively. "Habere" plays no role there.
--
Biep
Reply via any name whatsoever at the main domain corresponding to
http://www.biep.org
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
> * Andreas Hinze wrote:
> > Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> >> `must do x' means `it is compulsory that x is done'
> > Just for information: Is this the same as `have to do x' ?
>
> Yes, I think so. I can't think of a case off the top of my head where
> there are different meanings or connotations, although there probably
> are some...
>
> --tim
Thanks
Best
AHz
Andreas Hinze wrote:
> Just for information: Is this the same as `have to do x' ?
Yes. However there is a strangitude with the meaning of 'not have to
do x.' That is `must do x' and `have to do x' are the opposite of
'must not do x.' However, if you `don't have to do x' then you
shouldn't put yourself out but you can if you feel like it.
:)w
* Will Deakin wrote:
> Yes. However there is a strangitude with the meaning of 'not have to
> do x.' That is `must do x' and `have to do x' are the opposite of
> 'must not do x.' However, if you `don't have to do x' then you
> shouldn't put yourself out but you can if you feel like it.
Ah, but what about `haven't to do x' I think that (a) it's not
`standard English' (it's grammatically fine as standard English, but I
think I wouldn't generate it, anyway, and it sounds Scottish to me)
and (b) it means `must not do it'.
--tim
The problem all stems from the fact that people are forgetting the
following:
In Germany, everything not compulsory is prohibited.[1]
Thus `must do' and `not prohibited from doing' are equivalent.
:-)
----
[1] I've been unable to determine the origin of this quotation. The
closest I've been able to come is the following:
In England, everything is permitted that is not legally
forbidden; in Germany, everything is forbidden that is not
legally permitted; in the Soviet Union everything is forbidden,
even that which is legally permitted; and in France everything is
permitted, even that which is legally forbidden.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
We have yet to find the Galileo who will question
our me-centred universe. --- Christina Odone
Fred Gilham wrote:
>
> [1] I've been unable to determine the origin of this quotation.��The
> closest I've been able to come is the following:
>
> In�England,�everything�is�permitted�that�is�not�legally
> forbidden;�in�Germany,�everything�is�forbidden�that�is�not
> legally�permitted;�in�the�Soviet�Union�everything�is�forbidden,
> even�that�which�is�legally�permitted;�and�in�France�everything�is
> permitted,�even�that�which�is�legally�forbidden.
ROTFL
http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/weekly.htm
Who is Punch?!
Oleg
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: OT: freedoms (Re: The worm turns...)
Date:
Message-ID: <ey31y811vg2.fsf@cley.com>
* oleg inconnu wrote:
> Who is Punch?!
Punch was a famous magazine published in the UK from sometime in the
19th century until quite recently. It may actually have been revived
after it dies. It was a sort of lightly satirical / humorous thing
with good cartoonists, and quite a lot of good serious writing as
well. In origins I think it was much more political / seriously
satirical.
--tim
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:10:55 -0400, Fred Gilham wrote:
> The problem all stems from the fact that people are forgetting the
> following:
>
> In Germany, everything not compulsory is prohibited.[1]
...
> ----
> [1] I've been unable to determine the origin of this quotation.
In T.H. White's "The Book of Merlyn" (and/or in "The Once & Future
King"), Merlyn turns Arthur into an ant for him to learn from the
animal kingdom. Over the entrances to the tunnels was a sign
"Everthing not forbidden is compulsory by new order"
The ant kingdom was clearly a metaphor for totalitarian govts. but
I can't remember whether he was implying specifically Germany or
USSR, (or either or both), as it's been a while since I read it.
I think it was written in the 30's...
'Course, he might not have been the original source of the idea...
bruce
Tim wrote:
> Ah, but what about `haven't to do x' I think that ... it's not
> `standard English' (it's grammatically fine as standard English, but I
> think I wouldn't generate it, anyway, and it sounds Scottish to me)
Yes. I would say that the `haven't to do x' is the opposite of `have to
do x' and means 'must not do x.' There are similar constructions like
'do you not think?' or 'is it not so?' Also, this use of 'is it not x'
or 'have not to x' is more general than Scots -- I started using it a
bit many years ago after spending a lot of time with a young (southern)
Irish lass. (sigh).
:)w
Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
> Yes. I would say that the `haven't to do x' is the opposite of `have
> to do x' and means 'must not do x.'
probably you mean "need not do x":
i haven't a thing to do today.
===
i need not do anything today.
thi
Thien-Thi Nguyen <···@glug.org> wrote:
+---------------
| Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
|
| > Yes. I would say that the `haven't to do x' is the opposite of `have
| > to do x' and means 'must not do x.'
|
| probably you mean "need not do x":
|
| i haven't a thing to do today.
| ===
| i need not do anything today.
+---------------
I agree. To my ear [raised in southeastern U.S.], "haven't to do x"
means "I have no obligation to do X" or even "X is not one of the
things I have in my list of things to do". Ditto "don't have to do X".
To me, the command negative of "have to do X" is "must not do X".
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://www.rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
* Rob Warnock wrote:
> I agree. To my ear [raised in southeastern U.S.], "haven't to do x"
> means "I have no obligation to do X" or even "X is not one of the
> things I have in my list of things to do". Ditto "don't have to do X".
> To me, the command negative of "have to do X" is "must not do X".
This is clearly dialectical. I'm fairly sure that in Scottish English
`you have not to do x' means `you must not do x' (I'm not Scottish,
but I live there mostly). I'm also quite convinced by Will's Irish
reading of some similar things.
--tim
····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
> Thien-Thi Nguyen <···@glug.org> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
> |
> | > Yes. I would say that the `haven't to do x' is the opposite of `have
> | > to do x' and means 'must not do x.'
> |
> | probably you mean "need not do x":
> |
> | i haven't a thing to do today.
> | ===
> | i need not do anything today.
> +---------------
>
> I agree. To my ear [raised in southeastern U.S.], "haven't to do x"
> means "I have no obligation to do X" or even "X is not one of the
> things I have in my list of things to do". Ditto "don't have to do X".
In my dialect (urban, west coast US), we'd say that "ain't have to do x".
And it would have the same meaning you would hear. If I heard someone
with an american accent say "haven't to do x", I'd probably assume
they meant the same as "ain't have to do x". For someone with a
british accent, I'd wonder if they meant "have no obligation", or
"must not". For europeans, I generally assume they speak some sort of
british-ish english. For east asians and latin americans, I usually
assume they speak an american english.
> To me, the command negative of "have to do X" is "must not do X".
That, or "can't do x".
My advice to non-native speakers would be to watch out for idiomatic
speech. Native english speakers sometimes can't even understand
eachother.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
> In my dialect (urban, west coast US), we'd say that "ain't have to do x".
> And it would have the same meaning you would hear.
Never heard it. (Texas) Without context, the precise meaning is
unclear to me. I feel that you're not likely to do x, but I'm not
sure whether that's because it's forbidden/impossible, or not
mandatory (with the implication that you choose not to).
"ain't gotta do x" is clear to me.
joelh
Joel Ray Holveck <·····@juniper.net> writes:
> > In my dialect (urban, west coast US), we'd say that "ain't have to do x".
> > And it would have the same meaning you would hear.
>
> Never heard it. (Texas) Without context, the precise meaning is
> unclear to me. I feel that you're not likely to do x, but I'm not
> sure whether that's because it's forbidden/impossible, or not
> mandatory (with the implication that you choose not to).
Ah, fun with dialects. I use this construction all the time, and hear
other people use it a lot. For example, "I ain't have to go to work
on Saturday, it's my day off". [ It might be more clear if I point
out that I would pronounce that: "I ain't haf(t)-a go to work" ]
> "ain't gotta do x" is clear to me.
I think that's a pretty normal American construction, and "ain't have
to" might very well be a west coast thing.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@famine.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> Joel Ray Holveck <·····@juniper.net> writes:
>
> > > In my dialect (urban, west coast US), we'd say that "ain't have to do x".
> > > And it would have the same meaning you would hear.
> >
> > Never heard it. (Texas) Without context, the precise meaning is
> > unclear to me. I feel that you're not likely to do x, but I'm not
> > sure whether that's because it's forbidden/impossible, or not
> > mandatory (with the implication that you choose not to).
>
> Ah, fun with dialects. I use this construction all the time, and hear
> other people use it a lot. For example, "I ain't have to go to work
> on Saturday, it's my day off". [ It might be more clear if I point
> out that I would pronounce that: "I ain't haf(t)-a go to work" ]
Ah, Now I understand what you're saying. I know the sentence you're
referring to, but it is not based on ain't, but on a contraction for
don't instead. My spelling of it (if sloppy spoken slang could really
be spelled) is "I 'on't hafta go to work" or "I'n't hafta go t'work"
where the 'on't or 'n't is pronounced "unt" (like in "runt").
> > "ain't gotta do x" is clear to me.
>
> I think that's a pretty normal American construction, and "ain't have
> to" might very well be a west coast thing.
It could be a west-coast thing. Reminds me of teen-age years, when
the total accepted vocabulary to be directed toward parents was "Uh"
(i.e. "what?"), "Uh-huh" ("yes"), "Uh-uh" ("no"), and "uhuhuh" ("I
don't know" - this one needs inflection in the middle sylable, and
possibly a shrug of the shoulders for the superlative noncommital).
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
···@hurricane.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
>
> > Thien-Thi Nguyen <···@glug.org> wrote:
> > +---------------
> > | Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
> > |
> > | > Yes. I would say that the `haven't to do x' is the opposite of `have
> > | > to do x' and means 'must not do x.'
> > |
> > | probably you mean "need not do x":
> > |
> > | i haven't a thing to do today.
> > | ===
> > | i need not do anything today.
> > +---------------
> >
> > I agree. To my ear [raised in southeastern U.S.], "haven't to do x"
> > means "I have no obligation to do X" or even "X is not one of the
> > things I have in my list of things to do". Ditto "don't have to do X".
>
> In my dialect (urban, west coast US), we'd say that "ain't have to do x".
> And it would have the same meaning you would hear. If I heard someone
> with an american accent say "haven't to do x", I'd probably assume
> they meant the same as "ain't have to do x". For someone with a
> british accent, I'd wonder if they meant "have no obligation", or
> "must not". For europeans, I generally assume they speak some sort of
> british-ish english. For east asians and latin americans, I usually
> assume they speak an american english.
No, no, no! It's "ain't gotta do x"!
> My advice to non-native speakers would be to watch out for idiomatic
> speech. Native english speakers sometimes can't even understand
> eachother.
What's that? I don't understand.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> ···@hurricane.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
>
> > In my dialect (urban, west coast US), we'd say that "ain't have to do x".
> > And it would have the same meaning you would hear. If I heard someone
> > with an american accent say "haven't to do x", I'd probably assume
> > they meant the same as "ain't have to do x". For someone with a
> > british accent, I'd wonder if they meant "have no obligation", or
> > "must not". For europeans, I generally assume they speak some sort of
> > british-ish english. For east asians and latin americans, I usually
> > assume they speak an american english.
>
> No, no, no! It's "ain't gotta do x"!
"ain't have to" and "ain't got to" both work -- "ain't got to" also
has the implication of refusal or prohibition.
> > My advice to non-native speakers would be to watch out for idiomatic
> > speech. Native english speakers sometimes can't even understand
> > eachother.
>
> What's that? I don't understand.
Say what?
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org> wrote:
> Thien-Thi Nguyen <···@glug.org> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Will Deakin <···········@hotmail.com> writes:
> |
> | > Yes. I would say that the `haven't to do x' is the opposite of `have
> | > to do x' and means 'must not do x.'
> |
> | probably you mean "need not do x":
> |
> | i haven't a thing to do today.
> | ===
> | i need not do anything today.
> +---------------
>
> I agree. To my ear [raised in southeastern U.S.], "haven't to do x"
> means "I have no obligation to do X" or even "X is not one of the
> things I have in my list of things to do". Ditto "don't have to do X".
But in the southeastern US would you ever say "haven't to do x"? You
would never hear that here in the northeast, or the midwest. "haven't x
to do" would be what I've heard, and definitely interprets as the
negative of "I have x to do", which is not equivalent to "I have to do
x".
OTOH, my ear interprets that the same, because in every US dialect I'm
familiar with you would get the opposite by negating the verb, not the
modal. i.e. "You have to not do x", "You must not do x". In US terms,
to say "You haven't to do x" seems like it should be equivalent to "You
don't have to do x", which clearly means the same as "it is not
necessary for you to do x".
And, I don't think that's just US terms either. "haven't" is normally
equivalent to "don't have", so in the absence of a specific idiom, I
would expect swapping the two to maintain meaning.
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
Michael Sullivan wrote:
> But in the southeastern US would you ever say "haven't to do x"?
I don't know. I've never been :)
> You would never hear that here in the northeast, or the midwest.
> "haven't x to do" would be what I've heard, and definitely interprets
> as the negative of "I have x to do", which is not equivalent to "I
> have to do x".
Sure. However, "haven't to do x" means something quite different in
elsewhere in the English speaking world.
> In US terms, to say "You haven't to do x" seems like it should be
> equivalent to "You don't have to do x", which clearly means the same
> as "it is not necessary for you to do x".
Be aware then that this is not what somebody would mean by this in,
say, Athlone.
> And, I don't think that's just US terms either. "haven't" is normally
> equivalent to "don't have", so in the absence of a specific idiom, I
> would expect swapping the two to maintain meaning.
Hmmm. No.
:)w
Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
>>Yes. I would say that the `haven't to do x' is the opposite of `have
>>to do x' and means 'must not do x.'
> probably you mean "need not do x":
> i haven't a thing to do today.
> ===
> i need not do anything today.
Hmmm. Not really. These have subtle but different meanings.
:)w
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Will Deakin wrote:
> > Yes. However there is a strangitude with the meaning of 'not have to
> > do x.' That is `must do x' and `have to do x' are the opposite of
> > 'must not do x.' However, if you `don't have to do x' then you
> > shouldn't put yourself out but you can if you feel like it.
>
> Ah, but what about `haven't to do x' I think that (a) it's not
> `standard English' (it's grammatically fine as standard English, but I
> think I wouldn't generate it, anyway, and it sounds Scottish to me)
> and (b) it means `must not do it'.
I learned in school that in order to negate "have to" I must use a
negated auxiliary verb (e.g. do). So what do the native speakers say?
:)
Regards,
Julian
J.St. wrote:
> I learned in school that in order to negate "have to" I must use a
> negated auxiliary verb (e.g. do). So what do the native speakers say?
Hmmm. If you `don't have to x' then not doing x is optional. If you are
told `not to do x' then that is a clear indication not to do that. As is
'must not.'
I also believe there is a similar form in Italian with the negation of
must e.g. `non devono pagare il conto.'
:)w
> I learned in school that in order to negate "have to" I must use a
> negated auxiliary verb (e.g. do). So what do the native speakers say?
> :)
If American is native enough, then here's the basics. For dialect
purposes, I'm from Texas, but the following usages are common in
America. I'm not sure if they are identical in other English-speaking
countries, but I am aware of no differences.
"I have to use goto" -> I'm writing in BASIC, and the use of goto is
compulsory. (The source of the compulsion is unspecified here. It
may be compulsory because of the algorithm, or because I'm learning
about goto, or whatever.)
"I don't have to use goto" -> I'm writing in C, and the use of goto is
optional. (Whether it is desirable or not is not specified, and may
be implied from context. However, when speaking, a stress on the word
"have" generally implies that it is desirable, at least from the point
of the view of the speaker: eg, "I don't HAVE to buy candy", if I'm
planning my budget.)
"I have to not use goto" -> I'm studying under Edsger W. Dijkstra, and
goto is forbidden.
However, the last sentence sounds artificial and stilted (although the
meaning is clear). A native speaker may be more likely to say "I may
can't use goto". This technically means that it is impossible to use
goto (I'm writing in INTERCAL, and goto doesn't exist), but is
colloquially used to mean "I may not use goto" (I'm studying under
Dijkstra). More generally, "can" is frequently (and incorrectly)
substituted for "may"; this affects speech more than writing, and is
almost never seen in formal documents.
As before mentioned, "must" is generally either formal, or more
emphatic. "You have to pay the rent." "I don't want to pay the
rent." "You *must* pay the rent!" That said, the negations of "must"
are as follows:
"I have to use goto" = "I must use goto"
"I have to not use goto" = "I must not use goto" or "I mustn't use
goto"; the contraction "mustn't" is rarely heard outside of formal
contexts, but is still in current usage.
"I don't have to use goto" has no direct equivalent using "must". In
most contexts, "I may use goto" can be used instead, even though it
has a much different literal meaning. "I need not use goto" may be
used, but only in formal contexts or earlier (roughly, pre-1900 or so)
works.
Cheers,
joelh
Joel Ray Holveck <·····@juniper.net> writes:
> If American is native enough, then here's the basics. For dialect
> purposes, I'm from Texas, but the following usages are common in
> America. I'm not sure if they are identical in other English-speaking
> countries, but I am aware of no differences.
[ ... ]
> "I have to not use goto" -> I'm studying under Edsger W. Dijkstra, and
> goto is forbidden.
>
> However, the last sentence sounds artificial and stilted (although the
> meaning is clear). A native speaker may be more likely to say "I may
> can't use goto".
I think you've got a typo here. Nobody talks like this (except
maybe Texans :-)
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
>> "I have to not use goto" ->I'm studying under Edsger W. Dijkstra, and
>> goto is forbidden.
>> However, the last sentence sounds artificial and stilted (although the
>> meaning is clear). A native speaker may be more likely to say "I may
>> can't use goto".
> I think you've got a typo here. Nobody talks like this (except
> maybe Texans :-)
You're absolutely right. I meant "I can't use goto" in imprecise
speech, and "I may not use goto" in more formal settings.
Thanks,
joelh
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> I've been mostly ignoring stuff that Ilias posts, though I've idly
> checked his `scary readtable' things to see when / if he finally caves
> in. The latest one has
you should reply directly in the thread to raise the quality of this group.
> The main arguments that [+ 3 2] *can* but *must not* be executed
> by a Conforming Implementation starts with...
i'll correct this.
> Which looks to me like he has quietly reduced his claim to
> vacuousness.
Its not my claim.
Its 'Opponents' claim.
my claim: it must be executed.
> Since no-one else has followed up I guess I'm the last
> person reading them.
They read.
But they cannot beat it.
The Spirit of LISP.
> (I haven't actually read the rest of the article
> to see if it backs up my reading of the summary.)
read it.
beat it.
> (Incidentally my reading of this would lend credence to his German
...[linguistics]
> correct.)
no comment.
ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> > I've been mostly ignoring stuff that Ilias posts, though I've idly
> > checked his `scary readtable' things to see when / if he finally caves
> > in. The latest one has
>
> you should reply directly in the thread to raise the quality of this group.
He raises the quailty of he group precisely by not replying directly
to that thread.
> > The main arguments that [+ 3 2] *can* but *must not* be executed
> > by a Conforming Implementation starts with...
>
> i'll correct this.
Don't bother. I suspect that you are the only one who cares
anymore.
[ ... ]
> > Since no-one else has followed up I guess I'm the last
> > person reading them.
>
>
> They read.
Not any more.
> But they cannot beat it.
Of course not. You will not be beat. You have made yourself
victorious by definition, regardless of whether the victory is
based on truth.
> The Spirit of LISP.
Not a sentence.
> > (I haven't actually read the rest of the article
> > to see if it backs up my reading of the summary.)
>
> read it.
Don't bother, Tim, it's the same old drivel.
> beat it.
Interestingly, this has a double meaning in English as well.
I presume that your intention was to mean it in your typical
confrontational style, which is to say "Knock it down" or "Find
holes in the argument". But in English, there is also a slang
phrase "beat it" which means "Go away and don't come back".
I'll resist the great temptation to repeat your phrase back to
you.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
> > beat it.
> Interestingly, this has a double meaning in English as well.
> I presume that your intention was to mean it in your typical
> confrontational style, which is to say "Knock it down" or "Find
> holes in the argument". But in English, there is also a slang
> phrase "beat it" which means "Go away and don't come back".
> I'll resist the great temptation to repeat your phrase back to
> you.
On reading ilias, I'm more inclined to recall the third meaning.
Michael
--
Michael Sullivan
Business Card Express of CT Thermographers to the Trade
Cheshire, CT ·······@bcect.com
·······@bcect.com (Michael Sullivan) writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> wrote:
>> ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
>
>> > beat it.
>
>> Interestingly, this has a double meaning in English as well.
[...]
> On reading ilias, I'm more inclined to recall the third meaning.
That'd be the one which involves turning a worm, right?
-dan
--
http://ww.telent.net/cliki/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Duane Rettig wrote:
>
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
[...]
> > beat it.
>
> Interestingly, this has a double meaning in English as well.
> I presume that your intention was to mean it in your typical
> confrontational style, which is to say "Knock it down" or "Find
> holes in the argument". But in English, there is also a slang
> phrase "beat it" which means "Go away and don't come back".
> I'll resist the great temptation to repeat your phrase back to
> you.
"Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right"
-- Michael Jackson
Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-)
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
In article <·················@cs.uni-bonn.de>, ········@web.de wrote:
>"Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
>No one wants to be defeated
>Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
>It doesn't matter who's wrong or right"
> -- Michael Jackson
I believe there is a corollary of Godwin's law that now applies
to this thread.
Duane Rettig wrote:
> ilias <·······@pontos.net> writes:
>
>>Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>>>I've been mostly ignoring stuff that Ilias posts, though I've idly
>>>checked his `scary readtable' things to see when / if he finally caves
>>>in. The latest one has
>>
>>you should reply directly in the thread to raise the quality of this group.
>
>
> He raises the quailty of he group precisely by not replying directly
> to that thread.
>
>>> The main arguments that [+ 3 2] *can* but *must not* be executed
>>> by a Conforming Implementation starts with...
>>
>>i'll correct this.
>
> Don't bother. I suspect that you are the only one who cares
> anymore.
Yes.
I care.
About LISP.
I don't know exactly why.
And yes.
May i'm alone.
> [ ... ]
>
>>>Since no-one else has followed up I guess I'm the last
>>>person reading them.
>>
>>They read.
>
> Not any more.
>
>>But they cannot beat it.
>
> Of course not. You will not be beat. You have made yourself
> victorious by definition, regardless of whether the victory is
> based on truth.
It is based on truth.
How can you know, if you don't read?
I've replied to your reply.
I've replied to your arguments.
I've made the argumentation-line more compact.
>>The Spirit of LISP.
>
> Not a sentence.
The Spirit of LISP.
A sentence.
Freedom of Arts.
>>>(I haven't actually read the rest of the article
>>>to see if it backs up my reading of the summary.)
>>
>>read it.
>
> Don't bother, Tim, it's the same old drivel.
>
>>beat it.
>
> Interestingly, this has a double meaning in English as well.
> I presume that your intention was to mean it in your typical
> confrontational style, which is to say "Knock it down" or "Find
> holes in the argument". But in English, there is also a slang
> phrase "beat it" which means "Go away and don't come back".
> I'll resist the great temptation to repeat your phrase back to
> you.
I'll continue to detect the garbage.
This becomes a double meaning, too.
* at news wrote:
> The Spirit of LISP.
> A sentence.
> Freedom of Arts.
A noun phrase.
--tim (sorry, I couldn't resist, and following up to Duane and me got
the article to the point where gnus saw it again...)
> * at news wrote:
> > The Spirit of LISP.
> > A sentence.
> > Freedom of Arts.
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> A noun phrase.
Ah! Then perhaps you'll enjoy reading this (appended) story...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org ···@geddis.org
A story by David Moser...
This Is the Title of This Story, Which Is Also
Found Several Times in the Story Itself
This is the first sentence of this story. This is the second sentence.
This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story
itself. This sentence is questioning the intrinsic value of the first two
sentences. This sentence is to inform you, in case you haven't already
realized it, that this is a self-referential story, that is, a story containing
sentences that refer to their own structure and function. This is a sentence
that provides an ending to the first paragraph.
This is the first sentence of a new paragraph in a self-referential story.
This sentence is introducing you to the protagonist of the story, a young boy
named Billy. This sentence is telling you that Billy is blond and blue-eyed
and American and twelve years old and strangling his mother. This sentence
comments on the awkward nature of the self- referential narrative form while
recognizing the strange and playful detachment it affords the writer. As if
illustrating the point made by the last sentence, this sentence reminds us,
with no trace of facetiousness, that children are a precious gift from God and
that the world is a better place when graced by the unique joys and delights
they bring to it.
This sentence describes Billy's mother's bulging eyes and protruding
tongue and makes reference to the unpleasant choking and gagging noises she's
making. This sentence makes the observation that these are uncertain and
difficult times, and that relationships, even seemingly deep-rooted and
permanent ones, do have a tendency to break down.
Introduces, in this paragraph, the device of sentence fragments. A
sentence fragment. Another. Good device. Will be used more later.
This is actually the last sentence of the story but has been placed here
by mistake. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times
in the story itself. As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he
found himself in his bed transformed into a gigantic insect. This sentence
informs you that the preceding sentence is from another story entirely (a much
better one, it must be noted) and has no place at all in this particular
narrative. Despite claims of the preceding sentence, this sentence feels
compelled to inform you that the story you are reading is in actuality "The
Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka, and that the sentence referred to by the
preceding sentence is the only sentence which does indeed belong in this story.
This sentence overrides the preceding sentence by informing the reader (poor,
confused wretch) that this piece of literature is actually the Declaration of
Independence, but that the author, in a show of extreme negligence (if not
malicious sabotage), has so far failed to include even one single sentence from
that stirring document, although he has condescended to use a small sentence
fragment, namely, "When in the course of human events", embedded in quotation
marks near the end of a sentence. Showing a keen awareness of the boredom and
downright hostility of the average reader with regard to the pointless
conceptual games indulged in by the preceding sentences, this sentence returns
us at last to the scenario of the story by asking the question, "Why is Billy
strangling his mother?" This sentence attempts to shed some light on the
question posed by the preceding sentence but fails. This sentence, however,
succeeds, in that it suggests a possible incestuous relationship between Billy
and his mother and alludes to the concomitant Freudian complications any astute
reader will immediately envision. Incest. The unspeakable taboo. The
universal prohibition. Incest. And notice the sentence fragments? Good
literary device. Will be used more later.
This is the first sentence in a new paragraph. This is the last sentence
in a new paragraph.
This sentence can serve as either the beginning of the paragraph or end,
depending on its placement. This is the title of this story, which is also
found several times in the story itself. This sentence raises a serious
objection to the entire class of self-referential sentences that merely comment
on their own function or placement within the story e.g., the preceding four
sentences), on the grounds that they are monotonously predictable, unforgivably
self-indulgent, and merely serve to distract the reader from the real subject
of this story, which at this point seems to concern strangulation and incest
and who knows what other delightful topics. The purpose of this sentence is to
point out that the preceding sentence, while not itself a member of the class
of self-referential sentences it objects to, nevertheless also serves merely to
distract the reader from the real subject of this story, which actually
concerns Gregor Samsa's inexplicable transformation into a gigantic insect
(despite the vociferous counterclaims of other well-meaning although
misinformed sentences). This sentence can serve as either the beginning of the
paragraph or end, depending on its placement.
This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the
story itself. This is almost the title of the story, which is found only once
in the story itself. This sentence regretfully states that up to this point
the self-referential mode of narrative has had a paralyzing effect on the
actual progress of the story itself --- that is, these sentences have been so
concerned with analyzing themselves and their role in the story that they have
failed by and large to perform their function as communicators of events and
ideas that one hopes coalesce into a plot, character development, etc. --- in
short, the very raisons d'etre of any respectable, hardworking sentence in the
midst of a piece of compelling prose fiction. This sentence in addition points
out the obvious analogy between the plight of these agonizingly self-aware
sentences and similarly afflicted human beings, and it points out the analogous
paralyzing effects wrought by excessive and tortured self-examination.
The purpose of this sentence (which can also serve as a paragraph) is to
speculate that if the Declaration of Independence had been worded and
structured as lackadaisically and incoherently as this story has been so far,
there's no telling what kind of warped libertine society we'd be living in now
or to what depths of decadence the inhabitants of this country might have sunk,
even to the point of deranged and debased writers constructing irritatingly
cumbersome and needlessly prolix sentences that sometimes possess the
questionable if not downright undesirable quality of referring to themselves
and they sometimes even become run-on sentences or exhibit other signs of
inexcusably sloppy grammar like unneeded superfluous redundancies that almost
certainly would have insidious effects on the lifestyle and morals of our
impressionable youth, leading them to commit incest or even murder and maybe
that's why Billy is strangling his mother, because of sentences just like this
one, which have no discernible goals or perspicuous purpose and just end up
anywhere, even in mid
Bizarre. A sentence fragment. Another fragment. Twelve years old. This
is a sentence that. Fragmented. And strangling his mother. Sorry, sorry.
Bizarre. This. More fragments. This is it. Fragments. The title of this
story, which. Blond. Sorry, sorry. Fragment after fragment. Harder. This
is a sentence that. Fragments. Damn good device.
The purpose of this sentence is threefold: (1) to apo- logize for the
unfortunate and inexplicable lapse exhibited by the preceding paragraph; (2) to
assure you, the reader, that it will not happen again; and (3) to reiterate the
point that these are uncertain and difficult times and that aspects of
language, even seemingly stable and deeply rooted ones such as syntax and
meaning, do break down. This sentence adds nothing substantial to the
sentiments of the preceding sentence but merely provides a concluding sentence
to this paragraph, which otherwise might not have one.
This sentence, in a sudden and courageous burst of altruism, tries to
abandon the self-referential mode but fails. This sentence tries again, but
the attempt is doomed from the start.
This sentence, in a last-ditch attempt to infuse some iota of story line
into this paralyzed prose piece, quickly alludes to Billy's frantic cover-up
attempts, followed by a lyrical, touching, and beautifully written passage
wherein Billy is reconciled with his father (thus resolving the subliminal
Freudian conflicts obvious to any astute reader) and a final exciting police
chase scene during which Billy is accidentally shot and killed by a panicky
rookie policeman who is coincidentally named Billy. This sentence, although
basically in complete sympathy with the laudable efforts of the preceding
action-packed sentence, reminds the reader that such allusions to a story that
doesn't, in fact, yet exist are no substitute for the real thing and therefore
will not get the author (indolent goof-off that he is) off the proverbial hook.
Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph.
Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraph. Paragraphh. Paragraph.
Paragraph. Paragraph.
The purpose. Of this paragraph. Is to apologize. For its gratuitous
use. Of. Sentence fragments. Sorry.
The purpose of this sentence is to apologize for the pointless and silly
adolescent games indulged in by the preceding two paragraphs, and to express
regret on the part of us, the more mature sentences, that the entire tone of
this story is such that it can't seem to communicate a simple, albeit sordid,
scenario.
This sentence wishes to apologize for all the needless apologies found in
this story (this one included), which, although placed here ostensibly for the
benefit of the more vexed readers, merely delay in a maddeningly recursive way
the continuation of the by-now nearly forgotten story line.
This sentence is bursting at the punctuation marks with news of the dire
import of self-reference as applied to sentences, a practice that could prove
to be a veritable Pandora's box of potential havoc, for if a sentence can refer
or allude to itself, why not a lowly subordinate clause, perhaps this very
clause? Or this sentence fragment? Or three words? Two words? One?
Perhaps it is appropriate that this sentence gently and with no trace of
condescension reminds us that these are indeed difficult and uncertain times
and that in general people just aren't nice enough to each other, and perhaps
we, whether sentient human beings or sentient sentences, should just try
harder. I mean, there is such a thing as free will, there has to be, and this
sentence is proof of it! Neither this sentence nor you, the reader, is
completely helpless in the face of all the pitiless forces at work in the
universe. We should stand our ground, face facts, take Mother Nature by the
throat and just try harder. By the throat. Harder. Harder, harder.
Sorry.
This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the
story itself.
This is the last sentence of the story. This is the last sentence of the
story. This is the last sentence of the story. This is.
Sorry.
This reminds me on the great William Gaddis, one of my favorite writers.
Interesting coincidence.
http://www.williamgaddis.org/
Don Geddis schrieb:
> Ah! Then perhaps you'll enjoy reading this (appended) story...
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org ···@geddis.org
>
> A story by David Moser...
>
> This Is the Title of This Story, Which Is Also
> Found Several Times in the Story Itself
>
>
> This is the first sentence of this story. This is the second sentence.
> This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story
> itself. This sentence is questioning the intrinsic value of the first two
> sentences. This sentence is to inform you, in case you haven't already
> realized it, that this is a self-referential story, that is, a story containing
> sentences that refer to their own structure and function. This is a sentence
> that provides an ending to the first paragraph.
...
--
Reini Urban - Programmer - http://inode.at
ilias wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>
>> I've been mostly ignoring stuff that Ilias posts, though I've idly
>> checked his `scary readtable' things to see when / if he finally caves
>> in. The latest one has
>
>
> you should reply directly in the thread to raise the quality of this group.
LISP - The Scary Readtable - () => {} [#V0.4]
·····················································@pontos.net
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> I've been mostly ignoring stuff that Ilias posts
"Ilias" is nuttier than the proverbial fruitcake... "Er kannt nicht
anderes", LOL.
As I recall the previous enduring wacko was that French guy who fomented
the extended warfare with E. Naggum.
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
[...]
> `must do x' means `it is compulsory that x is done'
> `must not do x' means `it is compulsory that x is not done'
>
> but I think (and my German is very rusty and was never very good) that
> the `equivalent' (not really) German modal verb, Muessen, works as if:
>
> `must do x' means `it is compulsory that x is done'
> `must not do x' means `it is not compulsory that x is done'
>
> I think you have to use a different modal verb (darfen?) to get the
> English meaning.
Not quite.
"Ich darf" means "I am allowed to do ...". "Ich darf nicht" means "I
am not allowed to do sth.". "Ich mu�/mu� nicht" (in contrast to "I
must" and "I must not") means "I am required to do" respectively "I am
not required to do".
Regards,
Julian
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> I've been mostly ignoring stuff that Ilias posts, though I've idly
> checked his `scary readtable' things to see when / if he finally caves
> in. The latest one has
isn't he nice?
he likes me.
i recognize it in his words.
now, as this gets to a topic of language-analysis (linguistics), i'd
like to write something.
this is independent of the original poster.
Du porstiges Schwein,
you have to be mine.
Nun lass dass doch sein,
and all became fine.
Macht alles so karg,
The Freedom of Art.
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
[... snip ...]
> dialect of) English `must' works like this:
[... snip ...]
Don't forget the ANS dialect and the rfc dialect of english. The words
and phrases must, shall, "must not" etc. are usually documented in the
standard/rfc itself to mean almost, but not exactly the same as the
every day usages.
--
H�kon Alstadheim, hjemmepappa.