Yes. I agree.
A famous physicist - Dirac or Fermi or somebody like that (I can't remember) - is often cited for his judgment of the worst degree of wrongness as "That's not even wrong!"
Help with English
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
In which "wrong" is clearly an absolute and is used as such, confirming that Fermi (I might call it conFerming) was as good a grammarian as he was a physicist.
Nice that "true" is both absolute and relative,depending on which of its senses apply
A cut can be "true" and "fairly true" . It is not used there in the sense of "not false " though.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
A syllogism is a type of logical argument. The classic form of an example used in logic classes is:
1. All humans are mammals.
2. All mammals are warm-blooded and breathe air.
3. Therefore, all humans are warm-blooded and breathe air.
Syllogistic reasoning refers to this type of logical argument.
Why should I have to listen to you?
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I suppose that this is grammatically correct, but no one talks that way.
This is wrong. You have to say, "Why DO I have to listen to you?"
You could also say, "Why MUST I listen to you," but that is rather formal.
This is a statement: "I have to listen to you."
We could also say, for emphasis "I do have to listen to you."
To turn the statement into a question, we can change the way we say the sentence and the first sentence becomes, simply: "I have to listen to you?" We can't do the same thing with the second one, because the added emphasis of the "do" makes it impossible to be a question.
On the other hand, we can say "Do I have to listen to you?", which is a normal kind of question.
It wouldn't be technically incorrect to say "Have I to listen to you?", but probably no native English speaker has said it that way for over 100 years - it sounds like something from the 19th century to me.
When you ask a question with "Why" or "Where" or "What", the particular question word is a kind of modifier of the verb "to do", I think. Therefore, the following questions are all different:
"Does the bus go?"
"Where does the bus go?"
"Why does the bus go?"
So compare:
"Do I have to listen to you?"
"Why do I have to listen to you?"
"Where do I have to listen to you?"
"What do I have to listen to?"
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Both are correct, but they have different meanings. The verb "bring" is commonly used when the object to be brought will be carried by the person who is bringing it, and carried to the other person. However, it is also correct to say, "John brought his computer to me to use in class this morning."
It is also not wrong to say, "I will take my son to the movies."
"Bring" and "take" are surprisingly difficult words to learn to use correctly!
Yes, except you didn't stop in time. "To bargain for the best price" is all you have to say. To add, "very well" is a little redundant. If you want to compliment your son, use a new sentence: "My son bargains very successfully."
Data can be either singular or plural.
The etymology is from the Latin word datum that we still use, and the plural of that word is "data".
So while we could talk about a "datum point" on a chart, we can talk about "data points" on the chart.
In scientific circles you may still see people referring to data as though it is a plural word, using plural verbs.
So, for example, one might say "the data are showing us that..."
But data is also treated as singular in that it is taken to be the collective term for the many bits of data. Data, in this regard, is the singular word for the set of individual data (plural) points.
And is thus treated as singular.
So we talk about "the data is showing us that..."
The distinction, I think, is a matter of what you are referring to: if you are referring to multiple specific data points then you would use data as plural. If you are referring to data as a collective word then it would be singular.
Gotta love the confusing English language.
either;
but the sentence itself is not quite grammatical;
"I promise to bring my son to the cinema to watch a movie, if he scores an "A" in mathematics." is better.
Is there not a distinction between the two:
- if you "promise to bring your son to ..." then I think there is the implication that you were going anyway, only this time you will be sure your son joins you.
- if you "promise to take your son to ..." then I am not sure there is the same implication that you were going anyway.
It's a subtle difference, sure, but unless I was planning to go anyway, and usually do so without my son, I would always say "I promise to take my son..." I.e. I would only really be going so as to reward my son.
Subtle distinctions
Even for this native speaker it is hard to know how real that is. Just because a distinction can exist (that there is a niche in "distinction market" )that does not mean it is actually followed and just because it is followed by one person does not mean it is followed in the same way by another speaker.
Unless there was a widish agreement that that distinction was in fact followed,perhaps it is best ignored except as a conversation piece.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
These days, most Americans treat the word "data" as a mass noun, like water, happiness, air, love, food, etc.
Originally, a "datum" was one single piece of information, and the plural of "datum" was "data." People actually said, "Our data ARE very carefully protected." But since the dawn of the computer era, no one uses the word "datum" anymore. When they talk about "data," they mean all of the data, or at least the entire collection of data that is referenced in the conversation.
Frankly, although most of us still remember the word "datum," we're rather confused about its usage. Is my birthday (1943-08-31) a datum? Probably yes.
Is the Japanese surrender at the end of World War II a datum? Perhaps not.
Last edited: