Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above sense in his
good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only have used
or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say nothing of much
consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the fail-to-make-a-decision sense is
colloquial or non-standard.

I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not picking
up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over there?

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:43:54 +0100, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
wrote:

>
>Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above sense in his
>good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only have used
>or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say nothing of much
>consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the fail-to-make-a-decision sense is
>colloquial or non-standard.

What is the "above" sense?

I see no sense "above".

>
>I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not picking
>up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over there?

For what values of "that"?

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Ar an cúigiú lá is fiche de mí Aibreán, scríobh Steve Hayes:

> >Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above sense in
> >his good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only
> >have used or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say
> >nothing of much consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the
> >fail-to-make-a-decision sense is colloquial or non-standard.
>
> What is the "above" sense?

The one in the subject, ‘to waver, to vacillate, to equivocate, to dither.’

> I see no sense "above".
>
> >I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not
> >picking up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over
> >there?
>
> For what values of "that"?

“Dither,” to fail to make a decision when making a decision would be
appropriate.

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

On 25/04/2024 6:43 p.m., Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>
> Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above sense in his
> good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only have used
> or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say nothing of much
> consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the fail-to-make-a-decision sense is
> colloquial or non-standard.
>
> I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not picking
> up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over there?

A curious case. The two senses seem to me worth distinguishing, but
pretty close to each other, so that some slippage or ambiguity would not
be surprising.

A few more data points:

OED has the verb derived as a frequentative from "waff", an
onomatopoetic dog vocalization (they say "yelp", but that doesn't seem
quite right).

Clear attestation of both senses begins ca.1900.

The "dither" sense is said to be "Originally Scottish and northern
dialect. Now colloquial or nonstandard."

The "blather" sense is not marked as dialectally restricted.

From my point of observation: Deverson (NZOxDic) gives both senses for
NZ. I think I hear "blather" more frequently.

My Macquarie (Aus, 1981) has:
(v) 1. to speak or write vaguely, pointlessly, and at considerable length;
2. to talk or write nonsense
(n) 3. verbosity in the service of superficial thought;
4. nonsense; twaddle
....all of which look like variants of "blather".

AHD (American, ca.1970) has neither -- no verb "waffle".

I can't make M-W work on this machine; so awaiting information on its
current status in the USA, I would say: If Andy Grove
(Hungarian-American) didn't pick it (the "dither" sense) up there, I'm
guessing he is a man of enough experience and reading that he could have
heard/read it from UK sources. (It may be "colloquial", but it does
appear in print.)

Aidan Kehoe wrote:

> Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above sense in his
> good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only have used
> or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say nothing of much
> consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the fail-to-make-a-decision sense is
> colloquial or non-standard.

> I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not picking
> up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over there?

I'd say it's the normal meaning over here.

By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
notice Subject lines. I don't know how that happens, but it does.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 2024-04-25, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> wrote:

> Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above sense in his
> good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only have used
> or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say nothing of much
> consequence,’

I'm not familiar with that meaning.

> I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not picking
> up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over there?

That's the meaning I know, so presumably it is prevalent in AmE.

The Britannica Dictionary (formerly Merriam-Webster Learner's
Dictionary), which is very good at giving the prevalent meanings
in contemporary usage, says:

1 US : to be unable or unwilling to make a clear decision about
what to do
2 British : to talk or write a lot without saying anything important
or interesting
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/waffle

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:43:54 +0100, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
wrote:

>
>Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above sense in his
>good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only have used
>or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say nothing of much
>consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the fail-to-make-a-decision sense is
>colloquial or non-standard.
>
>I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not picking
>up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over there?

In my usage, to "waffle" is to provide a reply to a question or demand
that does not provide a specific response, acceptance, or denial.

To include the "ramble" meaning, I would use "waffle-on". The
response is extended, but with additional comments that don't clarify
anything.

A classic waffle used by a parent to child's request or demand is
"We'll see". If the parent adds a number of conditions that may or
may not determine if the request or demand will be granted, the parent
has "waffled-on".

On 2024-04-25, Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> AHD (American, ca.1970) has neither -- no verb "waffle".

AHD (5th ed., 2022) is online.
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=waffle
1. To be unable to make a decision; waver
2. To speak or write evasively

> I can't make M-W work on this machine; so awaiting information on its
> current status in the USA,

M-W.com also lists both meanings.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

Tony Cooper wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:43:54 +0100, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
> wrote:

>>
>>Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above sense in his
>>good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only have used
>>or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say nothing of much
>>consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the fail-to-make-a-decision sense is
>>colloquial or non-standard.
>>
>>I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not picking
>>up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over there?

> In my usage, to "waffle" is to provide a reply to a question or demand
> that does not provide a specific response, acceptance, or denial.

> To include the "ramble" meaning, I would use "waffle-on". The
> response is extended, but with additional comments that don't clarify
> anything.

> A classic waffle used by a parent to child's request or demand is
> "We'll see". If the parent adds a number of conditions that may or
> may not determine if the request or demand will be granted, the parent
> has "waffled-on".

At least they haven't beaten around the bush or gone all around the houses.

jerryfriedman wrote:

> By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
> notice Subject lines.

Certainly not.

> I don't know how that happens,

Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something that
appears only in the subject line.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 2024-04-25 07:19, jerryfriedman wrote:
> Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>
>
>> Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above
>> sense in his
>> good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only
>> have used
>> or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say nothing of
>> much
>> consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the fail-to-make-a-decision
>> sense is
>> colloquial or non-standard.
>
>> I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not
>> picking
>> up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over there?
>
> I'd say it's the normal meaning over here.
>
> By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
> notice Subject lines.  I don't know how that happens, but it does.

I notice them, usually, but the "above' in the body makes me look for
something in the body, not in the subject.

--
"So, what are you going to be doing this Millennium?"
"Not much - I'm going to be dead for most of it..."

On 26/04/24 01:45, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> jerryfriedman wrote:
>
>> By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
>> notice Subject lines.
>
> Certainly not.
>
>> I don't know how that happens,
>
> Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something
> that appears only in the subject line.

It's automatic for me too. I step from one article to the next by
tapping on the space bar; and I read the body of the article without,
usually, letting my eyes wander to other parts of the screen.

I picked up that habit when AUE was a high-traffic newsgroup, and it was
desirable to have an efficient way of getting through the articles
quickly. If someone refers to "above", I'm reluctant to waste my time by
going back and re-reading.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:19:58 +0100, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
wrote:

>
> Ar an cúigiú lá is fiche de mí Aibreán, scríobh Steve Hayes:
>
> > >Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above sense in
> > >his good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only
> > >have used or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say
> > >nothing of much consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the
> > >fail-to-make-a-decision sense is colloquial or non-standard.
> >
> > What is the "above" sense?
>
>The one in the subject, ‘to waver, to vacillate, to equivocate, to dither.’

Ah, I didn't read it like that. I might have done so if the comma
after "waffle" had been replaced by a colon.

> > >I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not
> > >picking up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over
> > >there?
> >
> > For what values of "that"?
>
>“Dither,” to fail to make a decision when making a decision would be
>appropriate.

As in the driver of a car on a multilane highway being unable to
decide which lane they want to drive in, and holding up the following
traffic while they try to decide?

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2024-04-25, Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> AHD (American, ca.1970) has neither -- no verb "waffle".
>
> AHD (5th ed., 2022) is online.
> https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=waffle
> 1. To be unable to make a decision; waver
> 2. To speak or write evasively
>
>> I can't make M-W work on this machine; so awaiting information on its
>> current status in the USA,
>
> M-W.com also lists both meanings.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waffle
waffle
2 of 3
verb
waffled; waffling ˈwä-f(ə-)liŋ ˈwȯ-
intransitive verb
1 : EQUIVOCATE, VACILLATE
waffled on the important issues
also : YO-YO, FLIP-FLOP
2 : to talk or write foolishly : BLATHER
can waffle … tiresomely off the point
—The Times Literary Supplement (London)

In American English, vacillation is the almost
exclusive use of the word that I've encountered.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/waffle
UK
to talk or write a lot without giving any
useful information or any clear answers
US(UK dither)
to be unable to make a decision

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/waffle
verb (used without object)
to speak or write equivocally:
to waffle on an important issue.
verb (used with object)
to speak or write equivocally about:
to waffle a campaign promise.

verb (used without object)
British.
to talk foolishly or without purpose; idle
away time talking.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/waffle
in American English
VERB INTRANSITIVE
Word forms: ˈwaffled or ˈwaffling
1. to speak or write in a wordy, vague, or indecisive manner
NOUN
2. Chiefly British
wordy, vague, or indecisive talk or writing

Looks like a definite distinction between British
and AMerican usage.

Ar an séú lá is fiche de mí Aibreán, scríobh Steve Hayes:

> On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:19:58 +0100, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Ar an cúigiú lá is fiche de mí Aibreán, scríobh Steve Hayes:
> >
> > > >Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above sense in
> > > >his good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only
> > > >have used or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say
> > > >nothing of much consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the
> > > >fail-to-make-a-decision sense is colloquial or non-standard.
> > >
> > > What is the "above" sense?
> >
> >The one in the subject, ‘to waver, to vacillate, to equivocate, to dither.’
>
> Ah, I didn't read it like that. I might have done so if the comma
> after "waffle" had been replaced by a colon.
>
> > > >I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not
> > > >picking up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over
> > > >there?
> > >
> > > For what values of "that"?
> >
> >“Dither,” to fail to make a decision when making a decision would be
> >appropriate.
>
> As in the driver of a car on a multilane highway being unable to
> decide which lane they want to drive in, and holding up the following
> traffic while they try to decide?

For example!

Another really common one comes up when a consulting firm (e.g. Accenture) is
hired. The people hiring the consulting firm are the managers of the relevant
business, and their job as managers is to understand and to assess the
conditions of their business and to make decisions based on that understanding
and that assessment, in order to improve their business. They are hiring the
consulting firm to understand and to assess their business and to come up with
decisions based on that understanding and assessment in order that the business
can be improved ...

--
‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out /
How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’
(C. Moore)

On 26/04/2024 at 08:26, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>
> Ar an séú lá is fiche de mí Aibreán, scríobh Steve Hayes:
>
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:19:58 +0100, Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Ar an cúigiú lá is fiche de mí Aibreán, scríobh Steve Hayes:
> > >
> > > > >Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the above sense in
> > > > >his good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I would only
> > > > >have used or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble on, to say
> > > > >nothing of much consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the
> > > > >fail-to-make-a-decision sense is colloquial or non-standard.
> > > >
> > > > What is the "above" sense?
> > >
> > >The one in the subject, ‘to waver, to vacillate, to equivocate, to dither.’
> >
> > Ah, I didn't read it like that. I might have done so if the comma
> > after "waffle" had been replaced by a colon.
> >
> > > > >I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the years in not
> > > > >picking up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that meaning over
> > > > >there?
> > > >
> > > > For what values of "that"?
> > >
> > >“Dither,” to fail to make a decision when making a decision would be
> > >appropriate.
> >
> > As in the driver of a car on a multilane highway being unable to
> > decide which lane they want to drive in, and holding up the following
> > traffic while they try to decide?
>
> For example!
>
> Another really common one comes up when a consulting firm (e.g. Accenture) is
> hired. The people hiring the consulting firm are the managers of the relevant
> business, and their job as managers is to understand and to assess the
> conditions of their business and to make decisions based on that understanding
> and that assessment, in order to improve their business. They are hiring the
> consulting firm to understand and to assess their business and to come up with
> decisions based on that understanding and assessment in order that the business
> can be improved ...
>

Consultant: Someone who borrows your watch and uses it to tell you what
time it is.

--
Chris Elvidge, England
I WILL NOT PRESCRIBE MEDICATION

On 2024-04-26 03:44, Chris Elvidge wrote:
> On 26/04/2024 at 08:26, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>>
>>   Ar an séú lá is fiche de mí Aibreán, scríobh Steve Hayes:
>>
>>   > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:19:58 +0100, Aidan Kehoe
>> <kehoea@parhasard.net>
>>   > wrote:
>>   >
>>   > >
>>   > > Ar an cúigiú lá is fiche de mí Aibreán, scríobh Steve Hayes:
>>   > >
>>   > > > >Speaking (in sci.lang) of Andy Grove, he uses waffle in the
>> above sense in
>>   > > > >his good, well-edited ‘High Output Management.’ In my youth I
>> would only
>>   > > > >have used or understood the word in the meaning ‘to ramble
>> on, to say
>>   > > > >nothing of much consequence,’ and OED2 documents that the
>>   > > > >fail-to-make-a-decision sense is colloquial or non-standard.
>>   > > >
>>   > > > What is the "above" sense?
>>   > >
>>   > >The one in the subject, ‘to waver, to vacillate, to equivocate,
>> to dither.’
>>   >
>>   > Ah, I didn't read it like that. I might have done so if the comma
>>   > after "waffle" had been replaced by a colon.
>>   >
>>   > > > >I presume I have misunderstood various Americans over the
>> years in not
>>   > > > >picking up on the ‘dither’ meaning. How universal is that
>> meaning over
>>   > > > >there?
>>   > > >
>>   > > > For what values of "that"?
>>   > >
>>   > >“Dither,” to fail to make a decision when making a decision would be
>>   > >appropriate.
>>   >
>>   > As in the driver of a car on a multilane highway being unable to
>>   > decide which lane they want to drive in, and holding up the following
>>   > traffic while they try to decide?
>>
>> For example!
>>
>> Another really common one comes up when a consulting firm (e.g.
>> Accenture) is
>> hired. The people hiring the consulting firm are the managers of the
>> relevant
>> business, and their job as managers is to understand and to assess the
>> conditions of their business and to make decisions based on that
>> understanding
>> and that assessment, in order to improve their business. They are
>> hiring the
>> consulting firm to understand and to assess their business and to come
>> up with
>> decisions based on that understanding and assessment in order that the
>> business
>> can be improved ...
>>
>
> Consultant: Someone who borrows your watch and uses it to tell you what
> time it is.

I thought it was a guy that knows 49 ways of making love, but doesn't
know any women.

--
The day after tomorrow is the third day of the rest of your life.
~ George Carlin

Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> jerryfriedman wrote:
>
>> By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
>> notice Subject lines.
>
> Certainly not.
>
>> I don't know how that happens,
>
> Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something that
> appears only in the subject line.
>

Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what
'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.

Of course, that type of incivility is part of the reason why historically
(a number of) sci.langers hold aueers (by default) in some measure of
contempt.

Tilde <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2024-04-25, Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> AHD (American, ca.1970) has neither -- no verb "waffle".
>>
>> AHD (5th ed., 2022) is online.
>> https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=waffle
>> 1. To be unable to make a decision; waver
>> 2. To speak or write evasively
>>
>>> I can't make M-W work on this machine; so awaiting information on its
>>> current status in the USA,
>>
>> M-W.com also lists both meanings.
>
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/waffle
> waffle
> 2 of 3
> verb
> waffled; waffling ˈwä-f(ə-)liŋ ˈwȯ-
> intransitive verb
> 1
>> EQUIVOCATE, VACILLATE
> waffled on the important issues
> also : YO-YO, FLIP-FLOP
> 2

To me those two would mean to have different opinions according to the time
of the day, or to how the wind blows.

Antonio Marques wrote:

> Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what
> 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.

I didn't answer Steve.

> Of course, that type of incivility is part of the reason why historically
> (a number of) sci.langers hold aueers (by default) in some measure of
> contempt.

Which kind of incivility do you mean? The change of subject?

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> Antonio Marques wrote:
>
>> Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what
>> 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.
>
> I didn't answer Steve.

Nope, you just provided the appropriate tag to latch on.

>> Of course, that type of incivility is part of the reason why historically
>> (a number of) sci.langers hold aueers (by default) in some measure of
>> contempt.
>
> Which kind of incivility do you mean? The change of subject?

If you lot can read Steve's original reply to Aidan in anything other than
an utterly uncalled for rude tone, there's little that can be gained from
this conversation.

Antonio Marques wrote:

> Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>> jerryfriedman wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
>>> notice Subject lines.
>>
>> Certainly not.
>>
>>> I don't know how that happens,
>>
>> Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something that
>> appears only in the subject line.
>>

> Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what
> 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.

The "it" there isn't idiomatic (though English has similar constructions that
do have an "it"). You could write "'dither' was quite explicitly said."
I might write something like "the meaning was explicitly 'dither'."

Also, "on" would be better as "about", or better still deleted, in my
opinion.

> Of course, that type of incivility is part of the reason why historically
> (a number of) sci.langers hold aueers (by default) in some measure of
> contempt.

I have my prejudices, but holding the posters in a newsgroup in any
measure of contempt by default hasn't occurred to me.

--
Jerry Friedman

jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
> Antonio Marques wrote:
>
>> Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>>> jerryfriedman wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
>>>> notice Subject lines.
>>>
>>> Certainly not.
>>>
>>>> I don't know how that happens,
>>>
>>> Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something that
>>> appears only in the subject line.
>>>
>
>> Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what
>> 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.
>
> The "it" there isn't idiomatic

The sentence sounded wrong to me, but even now I'm not sure why.
As to 'it', maybe it's not idiomatic, but is it ungrammatical? I don't
quite see it.

> (though English has similar constructions that
> do have an "it"). You could write "'dither' was quite explicitly said."
> I might write something like "the meaning was explicitly 'dither'."

I could, but that would move the topic from the intended position. I can't
think of a suitable alternative.

> Also, "on" would be better as "about", or better still deleted, in my
> opinion.

That's another interesting thing. You're right that it sounds better
without a preposition. But... where did I acquire inquire on from?
The best I could come up with in a lazy search was that it exists but
doesn't seem appear in reputable sources. One page suggests inquire should
take the same or no prepositions as ask, which sounds neat but may be
wrong. Ask on doesn't certainly seem possible, unless in the unrelated keep
asking meaning.

This should provide some more material for comment.

>> Of course, that type of incivility is part of the reason why historically
>> (a number of) sci.langers hold aueers (by default) in some measure of
>> contempt.
>
> I have my prejudices, but holding the posters in a newsgroup in any
> measure of contempt by default hasn't occurred to me.

Sometimes you get it from the group's own name, such as a lot in the alt.*
hierarchy (not this one, obviously, although in early days it had its
alt.quality.english vibes), sometimes from an attitude displayed all too
often, but the provisos are there, it's only a number of and only by
default and only in some measure. I'm pretty sure the feeling is mutual,
albeit for different reasons.

Antonio Marques wrote:

> jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Antonio Marques wrote:
>>
>>> Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>>>> jerryfriedman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
>>>>> notice Subject lines.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly not.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how that happens,
>>>>
>>>> Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something that
>>>> appears only in the subject line.
>>>>
>>
>>> Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what
>>> 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.
>>
>> The "it" there isn't idiomatic

> The sentence sounded wrong to me, but even now I'm not sure why.
> As to 'it', maybe it's not idiomatic, but is it ungrammatical? I don't
> quite see it.

"It" refers to "dither", so they're competing to be the subject of the
clause. If the sentence is an example of what I believe you linguists
call "right dislocation", you'd want a comma before "dither", and this
would be a very strange spot for the construction, for reasons I can't
define except that it's typically colloquial.

Otherwise, we've got "pseudocleft sentences" such as "It doesn't matter
where it happened" (compare "Where it happened doesn't matter"), but
the noun phrase corresponding to the initial "It" has to be a clause
or a to+infinite phrase/clause.

(All subject to correction, notably of terminology.)

>> (though English has similar constructions that
>> do have an "it"). You could write "'dither' was quite explicitly said."
>> I might write something like "the meaning was explicitly 'dither'."

> I could, but that would move the topic from the intended position. I can't
> think of a suitable alternative.

There's "In the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire what 'that'
meant, it quite explicitly said 'dither'." That's somewhat informal, I'd
say. What's the antecedent of "it"? More formally, you could write
"the text said" or "Aidan said".

If the subject were shorter, you could write "The bit that Steve quoted
explicitly said 'dither'." Or maybe you'd want something instead of
"said", such as "included the word". But what you actually wrote was
too long for that to be comfortable.

>> Also, "on" would be better as "about", or better still deleted, in my
>> opinion.

> That's another interesting thing. You're right that it sounds better
> without a preposition. But... where did I acquire inquire on from?
> The best I could come up with in a lazy search was that it exists but
> doesn't seem appear in reputable sources. One page suggests inquire should
> take the same or no prepositions as ask, which sounds neat but may be
> wrong. Ask on doesn't certainly seem possible, unless in the unrelated keep
> asking meaning.

> This should provide some more material for comment.
...

In a minute of thought, I can't think of a situation where you could
replace "ask" with "inquire" but would change the preposition.

(I might have time later to return to the topic of contempt by default.)

--
Jerry Friedman

jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
> Antonio Marques wrote:
>
>> jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Antonio Marques wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>>>>> jerryfriedman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, Steve isn't the only participant in a.u.e. who doesn't
>>>>>> notice Subject lines.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly not.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know how that happens,
>>>>>
>>>>> Automatically. And I hate it if I am 'forced' to quote something that
>>>>> appears only in the subject line.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Never mind that in the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire on what
>>>> 'that' meant, it was quite explicitly said 'dither'.
>>>
>>> The "it" there isn't idiomatic
>
>> The sentence sounded wrong to me, but even now I'm not sure why.
>> As to 'it', maybe it's not idiomatic, but is it ungrammatical? I don't
>> quite see it.
>
> "It" refers to "dither",

No, it's an impersonal passive, and I've just found out that for the last
30/40 years I may have been using a construct that english doesn't have.

It's probably late to erase it from my grammar, never mind that I like it.
Oh, well.

> so they're competing to be the subject of the
> clause. If the sentence is an example of what I believe you linguists

(That's not me.)

> call "right dislocation", you'd want a comma before "dither", and this
> would be a very strange spot for the construction, for reasons I can't
> define except that it's typically colloquial.

I won't say I've never used that one, but I agree it's much too marked.

> Otherwise, we've got "pseudocleft sentences" such as "It doesn't matter
> where it happened" (compare "Where it happened doesn't matter"), but
> the noun phrase corresponding to the initial "It" has to be a clause
> or a to+infinite phrase/clause.
>
> (All subject to correction, notably of terminology.)
>
>>> (though English has similar constructions that
>>> do have an "it"). You could write "'dither' was quite explicitly said."
>>> I might write something like "the meaning was explicitly 'dither'."
>
>> I could, but that would move the topic from the intended position. I can't
>> think of a suitable alternative.
>
> There's "In the bit that Steve quoted to flippantly inquire what 'that'
> meant, it quite explicitly said 'dither'." That's somewhat informal, I'd
> say.

It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that construction where I expected
'mine'.

> What's the antecedent of "it"? More formally, you could write
> "the text said" or "Aidan said".
>
> If the subject were shorter, you could write "The bit that Steve quoted
> explicitly said 'dither'." Or maybe you'd want something instead of
> "said", such as "included the word". But what you actually wrote was
> too long for that to be comfortable.

Which brings us to there being no proper alternative, which is odd but
doesn't look likely to interfere with my sleep.

>>> Also, "on" would be better as "about", or better still deleted, in my
>>> opinion.
>
>> That's another interesting thing. You're right that it sounds better
>> without a preposition. But... where did I acquire inquire on from?
>> The best I could come up with in a lazy search was that it exists but
>> doesn't seem appear in reputable sources. One page suggests inquire should
>> take the same or no prepositions as ask, which sounds neat but may be
>> wrong. Ask on doesn't certainly seem possible, unless in the unrelated keep
>> asking meaning.
>
>> This should provide some more material for comment.
> ..
>
> In a minute of thought, I can't think of a situation where you could
> replace "ask" with "inquire" but would change the preposition.
>
> (I might have time later to return to the topic of contempt by default.)
>