colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (11/09/85)
> Am I getting more sensitive, or is the English language, as used, > becoming less logical? > On all airlines now, for example, the landing message is always "We > would like to welcome you to ...". Well then, why don't they DO it? > Isn't "We would like to welcome you to New York" different from > "Welcome to New York"? Don't you expect the first to continue with > "but, unfortunately, we landed in <some other city> ..."? The prelude gives your ears time to get used to the sound of the speaker. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: csdsicher@sunyabva
evan@petfe.UUCP (Evan Marcus) (11/11/85)
In <2472@sunybcs.UUCP>, Col. G.L. Sicherman writes: >> Am I getting more sensitive, or is the English language, as used, >> becoming less logical? > >> On all airlines now, for example, the landing message is always "We >> would like to welcome you to ...". Well then, why don't they DO it? >> Isn't "We would like to welcome you to New York" different from >> "Welcome to New York"? Don't you expect the first to continue with >> "but, unfortunately, we landed in <some other city> ..."? > >The prelude gives your ears time to get used to the sound of the speaker. OK, then how about when a nightclub singer (read Lounge Lizard) says "I'd like to do a song, and it goes something like this..." Doesn't it go EXACTLY like this...? Just once I'd like to see one say "...something like this," then sing a song, then say "but it goes EXACTLY like this..." and sing an entirely different song! --Evan Marcus -- {ucbvax|decvax}!vax135!petsd!petfe!evan ...!pedsgd!pedsga!evan Who messed with my anti-paranoia shot?
ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (11/12/85)
[Drifted into net.travel from net.misc] > On all airlines now, for example, the landing message is always "We > would like to welcome you to ...". Well then, why don't they DO it? > Isn't "We would like to welcome you to New York" different from > "Welcome to New York"? Don't you expect the first to continue with > "but, unfortunately, we landed in <some other city> ..."? Somewhat off the track, but when we were flying from Xian to Nanjing, we could see the name of the airport in Chinese characters over the building. I commented that they could be landing us *anywhere* and we wouldn't know the difference, because we couldn't read the signs. Then the guide came back and told us that the airport we were landing at was, not, in fact, Nanjing, but some other city (whose name escapes me)! It seems we were low on fuel from all the luggage we were carrying and had to make an unscheduled stop. This can, of course, happen anywhere. We flew to Ottawa and started our landing approach in a fair fog, at which point the pilot came on to inform us that we were landing in Montreal! So, yes, I *do* expect them to continue with "but, unfortunately, we landed in <some other city> ..."! Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecl ****************************************************************************** * Wherever you go, there you are. Unless you're somewhere else. * ******************************************************************************
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (11/13/85)
In article <2472@sunybcs.UUCP> colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes: >> Am I getting more sensitive, or is the English language, as used, >> becoming less logical? > >> On all airlines now, for example, the landing message is always "We >> would like to welcome you to ...". Well then, why don't they DO it? >> Isn't "We would like to welcome you to New York" different from >> "Welcome to New York"? Don't you expect the first to continue with >> "but, unfortunately, we landed in <some other city> ..."? > >The prelude gives your ears time to get used to the sound of the speaker. Also, language conveys more than just "logical" information. It also conveys social and emotional information. The logic of language is often implied rather than overt, and therefore superficial analyses such as the original posting often lead one astray. What the airline is really saying is something like, "we want to give to you, dearest friend and valued patron, a proper welcome celebration, with fanfares, champagne, great food, etc. but due to circumstances beyond our control, this is not possible." Similarly, the most polite way to offer someone something is to say, "you absolutely must... (e.g, have a piece of this cake)" This is illogical on the surface. But it really says, "this (e.g, piece of cake) is so wretched and a general drag that only your duties and moral obligations as a proper guest could force you to partake of it." This is because it is considered good manners to be humble. Robin Lakoff wrote an article a few years back in _Language_ explaining this. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (11/14/85)
In article <2472@sunybcs.UUCP> colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes: >> Am I getting more sensitive, or is the English language, as used, >> becoming less logical? >> On all airlines now, for example, the landing message is always "We >> would like to welcome you to ...". Well then, why don't they DO it? >> Isn't "We would like to welcome you to New York" different from >> "Welcome to New York"? Don't you expect the first to continue with >> "but, unfortunately, we landed in <some other city> ..."? >The prelude gives your ears time to get used to the sound of the speaker. >Col. G. L. Sicherman I got burned once posting about English, but here goes again... "Isn't that a chrysanthemum" "Is that a chrysanthemum" are two sentences that at first glance seem to mean the opposite, but they don't. Perhaps this is similar. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (11/14/85)
According to the local weatherman, it is not merely raining; rather there is thunderstorm activity in the area. When the airline agent wants to usher the last few passengers aboard, he/she advises that the flight is in the final boarding process. I guess these phrases add a certain flair to the langauge. In English Composition, we were warned to avoid triteness.
dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (11/15/85)
In article <2472@sunybcs.UUCP> colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes: >> On all airlines now, for example, the landing message is always "We >> would like to welcome you to ...". Well then, why don't they DO it? >> Isn't "We would like to welcome you to New York" different from >> "Welcome to New York"? Don't you expect the first to continue with >> "but, unfortunately, we landed in <some other city> ..."? I would like to add my comments to the above.
jnettles@bcsaic.UUCP (jamie nettles) (11/16/85)
Kenneth Adam Arromdee writes: >"Isn't that a chrysanthemum" >"Is that a chrysanthemum" >are two sentences that at first glance seem to mean the opposite, but >they don't. Perhaps this is similar. Each sentence has a perfectly logical and distinct meaning - Is is not true that ... Is it true that ... The difficulty comes in the answer. If it is true that that is a chrysanthemum, then the typical answer to both questions is "Yes"!
dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby) (11/19/85)
>>> On all airlines now, for example, the landing message is always "We >>> would like to welcome you to ...". Well then, why don't they DO it? I have gotten into a mean habit, which I would like to recommend. So I will. How many times have you called someone and their secretary answered and asked, "May I ask who's calling?" or "May I tell him who's calling?" Now I almost instinctively answer, "You sure may," and wait. Most of the time, the poor secretary doesn't know what to say, and there are a few moments of awkward silence. Sometimes I never get around to telling her who is calling. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Kirby ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave)
kscott@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Kevin Scott%Kuntz) (11/21/85)
>Kenneth Adam Arromdee writes: > >>"Isn't that a chrysanthemum" >>"Is that a chrysanthemum" >>are two sentences that at first glance seem to mean the opposite, but >>they don't. Perhaps this is similar. > In article <378@bcsaic.UUCP> jnettles@bcsaic.UUCP (jamie nettles) writes: >Each sentence has a perfectly logical and distinct meaning - >Is it not true that ... >Is it true that ... >The difficulty comes in the answer. If it is true that that is a >chrysanthemum, then the typical answer to both questions is "Yes"! > They both communicate the same information, that the speaker is unsure of the plant type, but they have different shades of meaning. Isn't that ... implies, to me, that the speaker is somewhat more familiar with chrysantheums but is having trouble placing, for certain, the chrysantheum in question. I consider the lines "Will you come with me? Won't you come with me?" To have very different shades of meaning. Maybe it is just me. Any Philosophy/linguistic types out there ever studied what is between the lines in negative queries? -- two to the power of five thousand against and falling ...
mojo@kepler.UUCP (Morris Jones) (11/22/85)
>"May I ask who's calling?" "You sure may."
"Do you know what time it is?" "Yes I do."
"Would you mind telling me the time?" "Not at all."
"What time do you have?" "I have Pacific Standard Time."
... walks off muttering to himself...
--
Mojo
... Morris Jones, MicroPro Product Development
{ptsfa,hplabs,glacier,lll-crg}!well!micropro!kepler!mojo
{ucbvax,decwrl}!dual!micropro!kepler!mojobprice@bmcg.UUCP (Bill Price) (11/27/85)
>>"May I ask who's calling?" "You sure may." >"Do you know what time it is?" "Yes I do." >"Would you mind telling me the time?" "Not at all." >"What time do you have?" "I have Pacific Standard Time." "May I ask a question?" "You just did." "May I ask another question?" "You just did." "May I <long pause> ..., oh, never mind." -- --Bill Price uucp: {Most Anybody}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice arpa:? sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc
scco@ur-tut.UUCP (Sean Colbath) (12/02/85)
In article <2013@bmcg.UUCP> bprice@bmcg.UUCP (Bill Price) writes: >>>"May I ask who's calling?" "You sure may." >>"Do you know what time it is?" "Yes I do." >>"Would you mind telling me the time?" "Not at all." >>"What time do you have?" "I have Pacific Standard Time." >"May I ask a question?" "You just did." >"May I ask another question?" "You just did." >"May I <long pause> ..., oh, never mind." >--Bill Price uucp: {Most Anybody}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice > arpa:? sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc A conversation over the computer between a user and an operator of a large IBM mainframe running VM/370. The names have been omitted to protect the extremely clever and the extremely stupid/gullible.... 16:31:22 MSG FROM JOEUSER : GOT ANY DRIVES? Operator looks around room... MSG JOEUSER YES. 30. (Disk + Tape + ...) R; 16:35:08 MSG FROM JOEUSER : ARE ANY FREE? MSG JOEUSER SURE ARE. R; 16:36:58 MSG FROM JOEUSER : CAN I HAVE ONE? MSG JOEUSER SURE, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU COULD LIFT ANY OF THEM... R; Another amusing situation occured when a user called the operator on a Sunday morning when a scheduled shutdown had taken a little longer than expected... RRRrrring... Operator : Hello? User : Hi, is the CPU up? Operator : Nope... User : Will it be up soon? Operator (in faked Texas accent) : HELL NO! We ain't even got the smoke out of the machine room yet! User : Oh... Goodbye! <click> ...And one that I was lucky enough to witness: 09:23:16 MSG FROM FREDUSER : HELP! I CAN'T LOG OFF! I'm serious - all these actually occured! -Sean Colbath "Dave, why don't you take a stress pill and lie down for a while?" UUCP: {allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!seismo!rochester!ur-tut!scco BITNET: SCCO@UORVM
romain@pyrnj.uucp (Romain Kang) (12/05/85)
> ...And one that I was lucky enough to witness: > > 09:23:16 MSG FROM FREDUSER : HELP! I CAN'T LOG OFF! > > I'm serious - all these actually occured! Little quirks in VM can keep people from logging off or on. I used to use a system where this happened once a month or so: User tries to log out; can't. Operator's FORCE command does not do the trick, either. Systems programmers get called at home. Systems programmers play with memory. User finally gets logged off. In the mean time, various CP commands contradict each other regarding whether the user is really on the system or off. Very nasty... -- Romain Kang, Pyramid Technology Corporation US Mail: 900 Route 9, Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Ma Bell: (201) 750-2626 UUCPnet: {allegra,cmcl2,pyramid,topaz}!pyrnj!romain "Eggheads unite! You have nothing to lose but your yolks!" -Adlai Stevenson
broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) (12/13/85)
In article <137@pyrnj.uucp> romain@pyrnj.uucp (Romain Kang) writes: >> ...And one that I was lucky enough to witness: >> >> 09:23:16 MSG FROM FREDUSER : HELP! I CAN'T LOG OFF! >> >> I'm serious - all these actually occured! > >Little quirks in VM can keep people from logging off or on. I used to >use a system where this happened once a month or so: User tries to log >out; can't. >In the mean time, various CP >commands contradict each other regarding whether the user is really on >the system or off. Very nasty... Yes, this has happened to me and a few other people using VM/CMS.
colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (12/18/85)
> >> > You have mentioned one of my pet peeves from anti-Englishists. My > >> > really favorite, though is, "Let's see if we can't [do whatever]". Here the > >> > clear intent is to say, "Let's see if we CAN" do it... > > Actually, I use both depending on what I mean. > > If the concept is sound, I will usually say "let's see if we can do it" which > to me is similar to "Let's see if we succede". In other words, an optimist's > point of view. > If the concept is unsound, even crazy or foolish but might.....just might work > out, then I will use "Let's see if we can't do it" which, in this case, would > be similar to "Let's see if we fail (we probably will but let's try anyway)." > In other words, a pessimist's point of view. If the original poster cared about English, he'd say, "let's see WHETHER we can do it." -- Col. G. L. Sicherman UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel CS: colonel@buffalo-cs BI: csdsicher@sunyabva
edward@ukecc.UUCP (Edward C. Bennett) (12/22/85)
In article <2631@sunybcs.UUCP>, colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes: >>>>> You have mentioned one of my pet peeves from anti-Englishists. My >>>>> really favorite, though is, "Let's see if we can't [do whatever]". Here the >>>>> clear intent is to say, "Let's see if we CAN" do it... >> If the concept is sound, I will usually say "let's see if we can do it" which >> to me is similar to "Let's see if we succede". In other words, an optimist's >> point of view. >> If the concept is unsound, even crazy or foolish but might.....just might work >> out, then I will use "Let's see if we can't do it" which, in this case, would >> be similar to "Let's see if we fail (we probably will but let's try anyway)." >> In other words, a pessimist's point of view. > > If the original poster cared about English, he'd say, "let's see > WHETHER we can do it." > Col. G. L. Sicherman This brings to mind people's habit of saying "I could care less about <whatever>...". What theuy should be saying is "I couldn't care less..." -- Edward C. Bennett UUCP: ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!edward /* A charter member of the Scooter bunch */ "Goodnight M.A."