|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 29
newbie
|
OP
newbie
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 29 |
I, for one, flinched at that usage of hoi polloi, and wondered in what rarified environment the writer must dwell where the hoi polloi are at the universities. Certainly not my town.
Regarding the ownership of the language, I like to believe it is held in common, as in a common trust, and that its speakers have a responsibility to all other speakers of the language--current and potential, present and future--to maintain it in the most rational, educated, and conservative manner possible for each. Linguistic change is inevitable, yet language is larger than the individual, and such change must not be based on caprice, but on the language's own necessary functionality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Of course, if you really want to be pedantic you'll object to the usage the hoi polloi, since hoi means the. This is a common misuse, possibly from the confusion with hoity toity which connotes a certain fussy precision beyond the pale of reason characteristic of some members of Academia (which I prefer to pronounce [a-cuh-DAY-mee-uh] rather than the more commonly accepted [a-cuh-DEE-me-uh] so that I can make reference to Academia Nuts).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
In reply to:
My my my, sometimes it seems like we talk in circles here, doesn't it?
My my my, Ohioans have long memories around here don't they?  Four months must represent at least 13,000 posts - I wish I had that sort of recall! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
Yes, telah is the same as sudah but used in more formal situations. I tend to overuse it, since it's the one I see more often at work.
Yes, if you wanted you could analyse di- and mem- as showing object and subject focus respectively rather than as active and passive verb prefixes; sometimes one analysis is more useful, sometimes the other.
In my experience object-focus sentences are certainly more common than passive verb sentences in English, but they're not as common as subject-focus ones. Of course sentences with di- are not exactly the same as an English passive verb sentence, but in taking isolated examples they work well enough as equivalents.
oleh is obligatory when the agent is separated from the verb, e.g., Candi dibelikan baju oleh kakaknya. (Candi was bought a shirt by his sister), but optional where the agent immediately follows the verb, e.g., Baju dibeli Candi (the shirt was bought by Candi).
Baju membeli saya (The shirt bought me???) I ran this by a native speaker of Indonesian (in fact, the Candi who is becoming so familiar to our readers),who rejected it as not being a sensible utterance.
The most usual way to say what I assume you mean would be: Baju yang saya beli (the shirt (which/that) I bought). First and second person pronouns and pronoun substitutes come immediately before a passive verb (with or without being attached to the verb) and the di- prefix is not used. Third person pronouns can come after the verb, in which case the di- prefix is retained. baju yang dibelinya. (the shirt (which/that)he/she bought).
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 31
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 31 |
If the logicians were so logical they should have called it "Assuming the Conclusion" instead of giving it a name that doesn't describe it so well.
Sorry to hark back to such an ancient (my, how fast things move here!) post. I got really excited by Faldage's comment and hoped to find some follow up on the etymology of the expression. It seems untenable to me that the logicians express proprietary rights over it when they haven't proven that they are entitled to ownership. Talk about begging the question!
The real premise that I want to see examined is: what does the phrase mean, or what did it mean when it was first invented. And why that particular construction which, as Faldage points out, apparently defies logic.
BTW apologies if this has been dealt with. I find the threads so labyrinthine and the digressions and tangents so impenetrable (though utterly fascinating) that I'm not sure I will live long enough to check all the posts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 393 |
Baju membeli saya (The shirt bought me???) I ran this by a native speaker of Indonesian (in fact, the Candi who is becoming so familiar to our readers),who rejected it as not being a sensible utterance.
Aargh! That was a typo. I meant to transform Saya membeli baju into Baju dibeli (oleh)saya.
But last night I read through my book (it's been many years since I was familiar with this) and discovered what you have also said: 1st and 2nd person subjects precede (not just the fused pronouns, as I had thought).
Another exception to this is with the ter- form, which has to use oleh for the agent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Phyllisstein says: Sorry to hark back to such an ancient (my, how fast things move here!) post. I got really excited by Faldage's comment and hoped to find some follow up on the etymology of the expression. It seems untenable to me that the logicians express proprietary rights over it when they haven't proven that they are entitled to ownership. Talk about begging the question! I wouldn't say that anyone thinks they "own" it. They only define it. A quick google search comes up with umpty-six very similar definitions with very similar examples. As a matter of fact, no one claims ownership of it at all, more's the pity ... The real premise that I want to see examined is: what does the phrase mean, or what did it mean when it was first invented. And why that particular construction which, as Faldage points out, apparently defies logic.The meaning doesn't appear to have shifted (and has been expressed very clearly among the mess of this thread). However, here's a good reference: http://www.drury.edu/faculty/Ess/Logic/Informal/Begging_the_Question.html. But almost any of the others explain it as well. The etymology is obscure - I haven't been able to track down anything reliable, but from the structure of the expression I would expect that it became entrenched in the language during the 17th or 18th centures, although it probably has much earlier origins. Finding explanations for the origins of expressions is not easy. They are just "accepted". Someone else on the board may be able to find something definite. I find the threads so labyrinthine and the digressions and tangents so impenetrable (though utterly fascinating) that I'm not sure I will live long enough to check all the posts.We were all trained in obfuscation and sewing genteel-ish confusion by the Byzantine civil service during the 13th century. We can send you back for some instruction in the art if you like!
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
In reply to:
Another exception to this is with the ter- form, which has to use oleh for the agent.
But only if the agent is a pronoun. It's optional if the agent is a noun and immediately follows the verb, or at least that's what my grammar book says. I'll check with some native speakers and get back to you.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 31
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 31 |
The meaning doesn't appear to have shifted (and has been expressed very clearly among the mess of this thread).Sorry! I expressed myself very sloppily. What I meant was: when you dissect it (word by word) what does the phrase mean? What is the sense of the word "beg" in this case? And is the "question" in question the hypothesis that is supposedly being proven? etc... We were all trained in obfuscation and sewing genteel-ish confusion by the Byzantine civil service during the 13th century. We can send you back for some instruction in the art if you like! "Sewing confusion" sounds very genteel indeed! Thanks for the offer but I don't think fine needlework is really for me. But time travel to Byzantium in the 13th C: now that's a tempting thought!
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,331
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
|
