Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 18:15:20 -0400 From: Tim Vanderhoek <t.vanderhoek@utoronto.ca> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@attbi.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: grammar Message-ID: <20030608221520.GA72530@turquoise> In-Reply-To: <hxd6hxnvqa.6hx@localhost.localdomain> References: <3ECD3A8C.1040506@potentialtech.com> <00ae01c32668$2ff5ad70$2441d5cc@nitanjared> <20030531072026.O33085@welearn.com.au> <20030530213625.GA41089@wopr.caltech.edu> <20030531080645.Q33085@welearn.com.au> <qvsmqvnjtq.mqv@localhost.localdomain> <20030601113948.G33085@welearn.com.au> <152193951140.20030601041329@myrealbox.com> <20030601060733.GA31655@turquoise> <hxd6hxnvqa.6hx@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 05:55:57PM -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
>
> > But I would also accept the following two sentences as equally idiomatic
> > and semantically equivalent:
> >
> > (3) In case there is an explosion, call the police.
> >
> > (4) Call the police in case there is an explosion.
>
> Interesting. I strongly disagree. Sentence (4) tells me to call the
> police now to prepare for an explosion which only MIGHT happen. I guess
> that's called an "idiomatic" usage, because it doesn't seem right when
No, an "idiomatic" usage is just something that soothes the savage
language beast which we all keep under lock and key deep in the bowels
of our brains. If something is not idiomatic, then it will give you
pensive pause as you struggle to distill its intended meaning.
Example: Not idiomatic this sentence is.
This sentence, not idiomatic.
English (is) really attached to verbs, even useless ones, so arguably
something like the above isn't even correct, let alone idiomatic.
Illustrative purposes only. :)
I agree that the use of "In case" at the beginning of a sentence
definitely makes it a potential garden path sentence. A garden
path sentence is often subject to misparsing, but that doesn't mean
it's not idiomatic.
The horse raced past the barn fell.
Of course, that classic example is not completely idiomatic,
IMHO. OTOH, it's at all not unimaginable.
After it was raced, which horse fell?
The horse raced past the barn fell.
Oh. I see.
Digression: If you speak a little bit of British English (I've heard the
word used in the British sense around here, too) then it's
even worse. The barn fell could be the fell by the barn as
opposed to the fell by the lake. (Ie, fell can be a noun).
Which fell did the horse race past?
The horse raced past the barn fell.
Oh, phew. I thought it had escaped and raced past the lake fell.
That's why we say "that" all the time. "The horse that was raced
past the barn fell." "The horse raced past the fell by the barn."
> one analyzes it. Here's a similar example in which the idiomatic meaning
> is more obvious: "Wear your jacket, in case it gets windy." (Now THAT'S
> a precaution.) In (4), that reading is so absurd that I know the writer
> must have meant (3) (or (5), below).
>
> Changing the "in case" in (4) removes the just-referenced idiom.
Yes, I agree. All your example replacements of "in case" reduce the
potential confusion. "In a case where ..." "In a case of ...", etc.
> > English is kinda neat in that you can mix the phrases around in almost
> > any order and still have a semantically equivalent sentence:
>
> But it's less neat if you don't know the exceptions, especially as they
> differ from person to person.
Bah humbug! :)
> > (6) Keep a fire extinguisher by the stove in case there is a fire.
> > (7) In case there is a fire, keep a fire extinguisher by the stove.
>
> Sorry; those are not even close to equivalent, as I understand them.
> The second is only tolerable since you know the wrongness of it's
> actual meaning.
Hmm....
I have a really difficult time believing that there is a such a
difference in English between here (Toronto) and NW US. I did a
quick google search.
An example from the UK (but I found the same sentence at an Australian
government site, so I'm not sure what it's origin was):
-
-> In case there is a fire at night keep a torch in good working order...
-
[ http://www.odiham-fire-station.co.uk/Safety/evac.html ]
An example from New Jersey:
-
-> Make an escape plan in case there is a fire.
-
[ http://www.healthsquare.com/mc/fgmc1414.htm ]
Both are clearly precautionary. If I read your email correctly, you
say that you will hear the first one as being an "If ... then ..." and
the second as being precautionary.
But here, from Stanford University we have:
-
-> The Self Rescuer is an emergency device that he only uses in case
-> there is a fire underground.
-
[ http://pangea.stanford.edu/~kurt/kurt-mine-lingo.html ]
This from an elementary school that appears to be American:
-
-> In case there is a fire, keep your door closed and call for
-> help!
-
[ http://www.myschoolonline.com/student_showcase/0,2711,44885-142467-46-3007,00.html ]
Both of these are "If ... then ..." semantics (the Stanford one is more
obvious once you read what the Self Rescuer unit actually does).
One thing was pretty clear from the google search. It's much much
more common to use "in case ..." at the end of a sentence than at
the beginning.
Indeed, of the first six examples of "In case ..." at the beginning of a
sentence, four of them were from suspected non-native English speakers
(Russia, Israel, Hungary, and an American giving Spanish courses who
used an "In case ..." construct as a sample sentence for translation.
> Now in these, I put the "wrongness" in the opposite sentence, but I
> think the semantic difference is clear; the second is quite reasonable,
> while the first makes me laugh. I see someone whacking their beard as a
> precautionary measure.
>
> > (11) *Give her the Heimlech meaneouver in case she starts choking.
> > (12) *Give her the Heimlech maneouver in case of her choking.
An asterisk in front of a sentence denotes the sentence as being
incorrect or unacceptable (ie, non-idiomatic). By using asterisks
I was submitting that neither sentence (11) nor sentence (12) is
both idiomatic and able to convey the intended semantics.
> We differ again. The first makes me laugh again. The second imparts
> the reasonable meaning, though it sounds like less-than-perfect grammar.
... Hence you agree with my use of the asterisk. :-)
--
There are two types of tasks in life: those which become less urgent
as time passes, and those which become more urgent. Rotating one's
.signature file is a task of the latter type.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030608221520.GA72530>