Can anyone help me with a curly grammar question??

My children's school has recently adopted the motto "To learn is living fully." I have approached them saying that this doesn't sound right to me - that surely "To learn is to live fully" would be more grammatically correct. But they didn't agree - they think it sounds fine! So now I am trying to find out whether there is indeed some grammatical rule that is being violated by this strange construction that they have come up with.

I have poured over grammar & usage textbooks, learning more than I ever knew before about copulative verbs, gerunds, infinitives etc, but none of them has dealt with this specific issue of whether it's OK to have an infinitive and a gerund on either side of a copulative verb. Or have I misunderstood the structure of this sentence??

Any grammarians out there who can help me with this one? Or if this isn't the right forum for this question, can you point me to someone/somewhere else I could ask it??

Thanks!
Kate

I don't suppose it's actually ungrammatical, but it's not saying what they want to say. What they're saying is that it's the infinitive form of the verb learn that's living fully. To say what they want to say would require parallelism on both sides of the is.

yeah, but...

living could be considered a gerund.. and gerunds are 'continuous states'
So "to learn" (infinate) is living (continous state of being) fully.

it's inelegant.. but not ungrammatical.

I suspect they will not give any quarter on this no matter what you are able to "prove", as they have probably already invested $$ in materials using their brilliant slogan and don't want to change everything. Too bad they didn't ask a creative person, who could have come up with some better ideas, such as "Life is Learning", "Living fully means learning continually" or something along those lines... :0)

MWDEU on faulty parallelism

Hey, "life is learning", I like that!
I think I'll suggest it to them. Thanks!

yeahbut, in the interests of parallelism, living is learning.

I don't think it is grammatically incorrect, rather, grammatically clunky. As Faldage points out. "To learn fully is to live fully"




But is it living life fully?
I think the original (though clunky)has a sense of striving about it that the kids could be rewarded for in the end.

Kia ora Kate.

Why is this not parallel? life is a noun and learning is also. learning
But you can interpret it in more than one way, which makes it all the more interesting! :0)

Elegant beats clunky, even if the original notion may not be thoroughly represented! :0)

And thanks, Kate!

...or rather learning is living (with or without the fully) would be the parallel with the original quote. They are not saying "to live is to learn" which is already a known aphorism, but to learn is to live.

To me the quote as given SOUNDS smoother than "to learn is to live fully" which sounds more formal and stilted. But I agree that the infinitive plus participle does lack a certain grammatical symmetry.

Our old school rhyme used to be: (dating from the deep 19th century)
"My playing is learning
To learn is to play
So why would my learning cause any dismay?"

That's a fancy translation from the original
and if it is OK grammatically I'm not sure.

Do New Zealand government institutions like schools have to put up slogans in Maori as well as English, like in Canada where everything has to be in English and French(better?)? Maybe they could put up the Maori version in big letters so that everybody sees it first. Fewer people would be able to critique its grammar and many might think it sounds lovely without having any idea what it means (cf Urewera, Urenui, Tutaekuri)

Many institutions do have Maori names or mottos, but I'm pretty sure it's not a requirement - certainly not for schools. Still, good idea - distract people away from the crummy grammar with something else that sounds much nicer!

I'm going to let this one go.

I think it's only in Québec where outdoor commercial signs are required to have French text in a larger type than the English.

btw, the territory of Nunavut has 3 official languages: English, French and "Inuit language". Government publications are in Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun.

Government publications are in Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun.

Boy howdy. I'd love to get me some Canucktikut gummint brochures on snow ... (The Canadian national hymn in Inuktitut: link).

Uu Kanata!
Nangmini nunavut!
Piqujatii nalattiaqpavut.
Angiglivalliajuti,
Sanngijulutillu.
Nangiqpugu, Uu Kanata
Mianiripluti.
Uu Kanata! nunatsia!
Nangiqpugu mianiripluti,
Uu Kanata, salagijauquna!

Translation:

Oh, Canada
Snow falling from the sky. Snow on the ground.
Snow dissolving into the sea. Snow building up on sea ice.
Snow compressed to a crust.
Snow compressed into ice.
Snow blowing in the air, oh, Canada.
Snow melting in the summer heat.
Oh, Canada. Snow swirling on the ground.
Snow blowing in the air. Snow melting in the summer heat.
Oh, Canada, snow covering the igloos.

Oh, Canada, snow covering the igloos.

LOLsheep!

I would resent that but I don't have time. I have to go feed the sled dogs.

Well,well, nice! The only thing regognizable is 'Uu Kanata'
They must have a different word for each type or state of snow.

Miranirapluti must be the melting in the summerheat.
But no reoccuring indication of the snow-part.
Really interesting.

See The Great Eskimo Snow Hoax by Geoff Pullum.

"The unfortunate fact is that even lists of
Eskimo words with meanings attached, written out by people with
extensive acquaintance with the people and the language, have to
be interpreted in a sophisticated way against the background of a full
understanding of Eskimo morphology and etymology if we are to
draw conclusions about whether they can be counted as words
for snow.
So how many really? 1 know you still crave an answer. I will say..."

No , I do not crave the answer to how many there are. Sorry, can't do the 8 pages all as I have to really work, but it struck me that in our so many words for rain the word rain returns as a reconizable part . Not in these Eskimo words.
Never mind.

This whole Eskimo snow thing got started with a comment by Franz Boaz that the Eskimos had four words for snow. The number increased in the retelling and has been seen as large as 400. Here's another, easier to skim, statement of the "hoax", as it is sometimes called. What all these retellings and any of the refutations of the retellings left out is that Boaz also said (and I'm going by memory here. I can't find the original text from Boaz) is that they had no word that covered snow in all its aspects.

PS

Aklthough I am a descriptivist, I don't like the use of the term 'hoax' to describe this phenomenon. To me 'hoax' implies a deliberate attempt to deceive for some gain on the part of the hoaxer.

Thanks Faldage, this is easier digestible stuff.
I like this quite poetic one:

naklin - forgotten snow

We had none of Nunavut when I was in school (I think it was called Northwest Territories then) so I only know that it suddenly appeared on the new maps one year.
Since the English lyric is "Our home and native land", I'm leaping to the conclusion (since the French lyrics seem to be different) that nunavut means something along the lines of either home or native land. I wonder if it causes anyone any cognitive dissonance to sing that lyric as if The Star Spangled Banner were to say "the land of the free and the South Dakota of the brave".
On the other hand if you're singing "True patriot love in all thy sons command." while the guy next to you is singing "Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux" (your brow is girded with glorious garlands), you're probably used to that sort of thing.

"Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux" (your brow is girded with glorious garlands)

Just for the record, the French line precedes the English one by a couple of decades.

In my searches for information on the origin of the Great Eskimo Snow Kerfuffle I ran acros numerous complaints about the use of the term Eskimo being offensive, the terms Inuit, Yupik, or Aleut being prefered. My question is whether there is a term that covers all three groups. First Nations is fine for those who were descended from the first wave of humans to migrate to the Americas, but the, you should pardon the expression, Eskimos weren't in that group. Do we call them Second Nations?

I'm really curious what could be the offensive in Eskimo.
Dictionaries don't give any negative sign.

I'm really curious what could be the offensive in Eskimo.

The problem boils down to it be a term that was applied by another language group to the Inuit et al. (see link). Whether the term is (or was) in fact a pejorative one or not is besides the point. Compare a similar situation with the people formerly known as Winnebago (which meant something like 'stinking water people' in a neighboring language) who are now known as the Ho-Chunk. This phenomenon has to do with explorers asking neighboring (sometimes hostile) people what the folks next over were called. People are touchy about what they're called. Unfortunately, people are also touchy about being told what to call other people. I try to accommodate people by using a term for them that they prefer. Otherwise, communication tends to break down and we end up squabbling about matters unimportant to the original subject. I also try not to make fun of their accent, word choice, syntax, etc.

Oh, its like me (irish) calling my neighbors "bloody brits"--I don't mind doing that at all, but civilized englishmen might mind..

shades of Dr Johnson's definition of Oats..

So is there a generic term that covers Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut peoples?

Of course, but how we do complicate things. Strange world.
I always think Eskimo a much snugger,nicer word than Inuït.
Associates with snow and iglo, while Inuit reads to me like innuwit in - no - wit.
I wouldn't call a T-bonesteak/rare cooked meat either. The Japanese eat raw fish as do the Dutch and Swedes with their herrings and gravadlachs. The Greeks eat sea urchins raw and raw slightly roasted octopus; raw oysters are eaten by the whole chique world. Yes, it all comes down to local touchiness.

I feel like a real cannibal when I eat the fashionable beautiful
Nasturtium flower.

OATS, (otes) n. -. A grain, which in England is generally given to horses; but in Scotland supports the people.

-joe (def'ns 'Я us) friday

Ah! didn't it continue like this:
"That's why the English have such fine horses while the Scots are such fine people?"

So is there a generic term that covers Inuit, Yupik, and Aleut peoples?

Not that I know of. You might ask the Inuit Circumpolar Council (link), but they might be predisposed to using Inuit as the generic term.

but not in the dictionary!

Yup me too, but I make exceptions for Kiwis, Poms and Hillbillies like Jackie. Especially Kiwis!

You can be grateful you're alive now as the Kiwi and Ocker accents are moving apart. Some scholars have said that comparisons of recordings show that the two were nearly identical up until somewhere around WWII, but that the rate of divergence is accelerating. So if you'd lived back then you would have been making fun of your own accent. Although from what I understand of it, Tasmanians get more flak for their VERY close family ties than for their distinctive accent.

I think the Kiwi eckcent before WW2 was possibly more English than ours.

I do make fun of ours too.

I'm a naturalized Tasmanian, so have the normal number of fingers. I have had the operation to graft the second head though...

I don't see alleged or a similar qualifier before “VERY close family ties,” which emphasizes very in all caps. If you wish to suggest rampant incest or to promulgate reports thereof as factual, can you furnish reliable supporting documentation?

We're talking stereotypes here. We don' need no steenkin' facts.

plus from what I've seen here and other forums it seems as if Australians and New Zealanders expect to insult each other and tobe insulted by each other. I don't understand why, but that is how it comes across.

it seems as if Australians and New Zealanders expect to insult each other and tobe insulted by each other. I don't understand why, but that is how it comes across.
I agree completely! Said the "hillbilly" who has only ever been in the foothills of Appalachia...once. But--since I've been insulted, I reckon I'm now in the "in crowd"!