Latest post of the previous page:
I should probably try some before criticising ...Hundovir wrote:I've never had Japanese whisky, but I'm led to believe that some of it is rather good. (Suntory?)
Not heard of Ardbeg before. Laphroaig and its friend Lagavulin are good. Have you tried my favourite, Talisker?Ardbeg and Laphroaig for me please.
No, it means that I make no claims about whether arsenic poisons dogs, or horses, or the Golden Poison Frog, or any other animal. Does it not make sense to specify the species, since substances differ in their effects on members of different species? In this case, arsenic does poison dogs. But so do chocolate, grapes and macadamia nuts.Trinoc wrote:Emma Woolgatherer wrote:... you have forced yourself to be specific about the target of the misleading where no such specificity was implied. Consider, perhaps, "Arsenic is poisonous" being changed to "Arsenic poisons people". Does that mean it would not poison dogs?
Well, I would say that you seem to be playing the game well already. Lewist's contribution fits the bill perfectly, too.Marian wrote:How would such a game work in practice? I want to tryEmma Woolgatherer wrote: ... I wondered whether we could make some kind of Club Soda game out of it. Would that appeal to anyone?
That's a criticism of my particular example, and supposes that whoever was writing wanted to distinguish arsenic poisoning in humans from arsenic poisoning in other animals. In any given case it may be necessary to be specific, but that is something for the writer to decide, not something to be dictated by the grammar. I suppose I'm resisting the quasi-Orwellian notion that grammar can, or even should, influence what we can and can not think or communicate.Emma Woolgatherer wrote:No, it means that I make no claims about whether arsenic poisons dogs, or horses, or the Golden Poison Frog, or any other animal. Does it not make sense to specify the species, since substances differ in their effects on members of different species? In this case, arsenic does poison dogs. But so do chocolate, grapes and macadamia nuts.
They make Ardbeg on Islay. I find it reminiscent of Laphroaig's peaty/iodine/medicinal flavours, but not nearly as pronounced, and with a deep honey sweetness.Trinoc wrote:Not heard of Ardbeg before. Laphroaig and its friend Lagavulin are good. Have you tried my favourite, Talisker?
That's sort of what I like about Talisker.Hundovir wrote:They make Ardbeg on Islay. I find it reminiscent of Laphroaig's peaty/iodine/medicinal flavours, but not nearly as pronounced, and with a deep honey sweetness.Trinoc wrote:Not heard of Ardbeg before. Laphroaig and its friend Lagavulin are good. Have you tried my favourite, Talisker?
I think you'll find that should be "pedantry rules!"Marian wrote:Pedantism rules!
* splutter splutter*Marian wrote:Can we specify the rules, please? Do we follow strict adherence to rules? Wikipedia indicates the specific words allowed and prohibited. Pedantism rules!
Burn the heretic!Nick wrote:Does that wash only one item at a time...?
But surely it does. All the time. I think E-Prime draws our attention to that by forcing us to change our style in a way that doesn't feel "natural", but normal grammar constrains us too, just in a way that we don't generally notice.Trinoc wrote:In any given case it may be necessary to be specific, but that is something for the writer to decide, not something to be dictated by the grammar. I suppose I'm resisting the quasi-Orwellian notion that grammar can, or even should, influence what we can and can not think or communicate.
Yes, sometimes it does. But sometimes it makes the intended meaning clearer, I think. Or at the very least, it makes one think about what one actually does mean. As an exercise, or a game, I think that makes it rather interesting. But then, I do have odd interests ...Trinoc wrote:My point is, regardless of how good or bad my example was, that deliberately expunging the verb "to be", or the passive voice (the other main beef of E-Prime), is often more than a matter of style and actually changes the intended meaning.
Hundovir wrote: I think you'll find that should be "pedantry rules!"
Nick wrote: It's pedantry!
The pendantry police have caught me red-handed! What shall be my punishment? 
People rarely use the word "pedantism" nowadays, but it appears in the Oxford English Dictionary. Unfortunately, it means "the office or authority of a schoolmaster" or "the state of being under a schoolmaster or teacher, pupillage", so it doesn't quite fit your purpose. I prefer "Pedants rule!" If they did, would would presumably have a "pedantocracy", which also appears in the OED.Marian wrote:Can we specify the rules, please? Do we follow strict adherence to rules? Wikipedia indicates the specific words allowed and prohibited. Pedantism rules!
Diss away, Nick. My nose remains covered in skin.Nick wrote:OTOH, sorry to diss the central theme of this thread, Emma
I have never tasted detergent, but I, too, have been disappointed by the taste of whisky. Except when added to marmalade. Still, each to his or her own. One cannot account for taste. It takes all sorts ...Nick wrote:... but frankly, whisky tastes like detergent. Emperor's new tot, anyone?
I only asked about the rules because I figured if they talked about whisky, they might just as well play the game properly...to no avail.Emma Woolgatherer wrote: I had rather hoped that we could play the game without specifying the rules, since in order to specify the rules we would have to use the words forbidden by E-Prime. But I don't detect much enthusiasm for playing anyway. Bizarrely, it seems they'd rather talk about whisky. Extraordinary.Emma
As long as they talk about whiskey in E-prime.Emma Woolgatherer wrote:But I don't detect much enthusiasm for playing anyway. Bizarrely, it seems they'd rather talk about whisky. Extraordinary.
Emma
I prefer Hakutsuru sake, chilled. Smooth stuff. 
