PDA

View Full Version : Is "and yet" grammatically incorrect and/or ambiguous?



Richard Amiel McGough
10-22-2014, 11:06 PM
Excellent. Please explain the "ambiguity" in this statement:

There would be a contradiction if God's will is done in heaven, and yet God's angels in heaven could sin.

Thanks!

Richard
Please state your proposition.

I notice you have included the "and yet" again, which you pointed out to me you had dropped from your recent quotation of that sentence.

"and yet" is grammatically incorrect. As was found, the fact that the two words according to their placement can mean something different to what you intend. Different meanings lead to ambiguity. All you have to do, is re-word your statement (sentence) removing anything with more than one meaning, or first agreeing the meaning with the other party.

On September 15, 2012, David M started a thread called God's will is done in Heaven (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3352-God-s-will-is-done-in-Heaven). His opening posted contained this argument:
What we have is a paradox; an apparent contradiction in God’s word. Peter tells us; “angels sinned”, and Jesus says; God’s will is done in Heaven. This paradox must be resolved. Explaining Jude 6 or 2 Peter 2:4 to show that the angles referred to are not God’s Angels in Heaven removes the paradox. The same can be done for any passage in the Bible which implies God’s Angels in Heaven can sin.
I responded by saying:
I like the way you framed this discussion. A nice, clearly stated "paradox." That should make for some good progress.
Unfortunately, things have not worked out the way I anticipated. David and I have been disputing the mere formulation of that paradox for over two years now!

In my efforts to clarify the logic of his paradox, I carefully defined my terms to avoid equivocation over "angels" as "human messengers" vs "God's Angels in Heaven" and wrote the following:
There would be a paradox if God's Will is done in heaven, and yet God's Angels in heaven could sin.
David has disputed this statement for over two years. I've explained it every way possible, but he simply refuses to follow any logical train of through to completion. Here is a typical example of how he deliberately evades logic that would prove wrong. I presented this five step logical sequence, and asked him to respond to each point (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59131#post59131)):
1) By definition, there would be a contradiction if P and Not P were both true.

2) By your own premise, Angels sinning in heaven would imply that God's will was not being done.

3) Therefore, if P = "God's will is done in heaven" and Q = "God's angels in heaven sin" then Q implies NOT P. (This is just another way of saying that Q contradicts P).

4) Therefore, there would be a contradiction IF P AND Q.

5) Therefore, there would be a contradiction IF God's will is done in heaven AND God's angels in heaven could sin.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS LOGIC? DO YOU AGREE IT IS PERFECT AND PRECISE? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
I felt it necessary to write in bold all caps because he habitually ignores my questions and if I repeat them he refuses to answer on the pretext that he already did. Such behavior is extremely aggravating. But I persisted in my efforts to reason with him. Unfortunately, he stayed true to his ways and played the crazy man once again. He answered the first three points in the affirmative, but on point #4, he said this (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59188#post59188)):
Now you are switching the word "THEN" for "AND". Before you said; "If P then Q" and now you are saying; "if P AND Q" and that is besides the time you said; "If P AND YET Q". By switching, you are not being consistent.
I switched nothing of course. Point #1 says "P and Not P." There was no "THEN" in my logical sequence. There was no "If P then Q." David's response was simply insane, especially his complaint that I had "switched" from using "yet" since I had omitted that word as a concession to his adamant insistence that it was the source of some "ambiguity" that made it impossible for him to accept my formulation of the paradox.

So I explained that I had not switched anything, and quoted my own words yet again in the hope he might respond to them. He responded as follows (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59223#post59223)):
I agree with that in the context of what you have replied in your last post. I was drawing your attention that you have switched in the terms of how you have been arguing in the past. You have argued in the past using "If P then Q" as a logic expression and you have said in another post; "If P and yet Q". I do not disagree with "P and Not P" as that does not make any difference. It is how you have not been consistent by sticking to one set of words. The words "and yet" you have to respond to the points I made in my last reply.
His goal was now achieved. He successfully DODGED THE BULLET OF TRUTH and skillfully changed the subject without ever completing that logical sequence. He deliberately derailed the train of thought because he knew that he could not answer without admitting his error. And worse, he continued to focus on the phrase "and yet" even after I had conceded to his demand! Is that crazy or what? This has been his practice on this forum for over two years.

And this brings us to the topic of this thread. Is the phrase "and yet" grammatically incorrect and ambiguous? David has appealed to three websites to support his claim (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59188#post59188)). Here they are:


http://grammarist.com/usage/and-yet/ - This page merely said "and yet is redundant, and and could usually be cut." It speaks of style. Says nothing about any "ambiguity" or grammatical error.
http://painintheenglish.com/case/4314 - This one is quite a hoot. David quoted one anonymous comment in the comment stream under the article that said "and yet is redundant." It said nothing of grammar, only of style. It also incorrectly described the phrase as "idiomatic" - an error that David has repeated many times even though I have repeatedly explained why it was false.
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/subjunctive-verbs?page=all - David completely misunderstood this page. It said nothing that supported his claims.

That's it. That's the sum of David's citations that were supposed to prove his case.

Our friend L67 tried to help David see his mistake by showing him the Merriam-Webster definition of paradox (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59327#post59327)):
paradox 2b: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true

David responded by saying "Thank you L67 for point out the poor grammar used by Merriam-Webster and perhaps you should write to them and point this out. " (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59339#post59339)).

I was floored. I could not believe that David would try to defend his ludicrous position by declaring that the Merriam-Webster dictionary was wrong! So I found a paper written by famed professor of linguistics, Paul Grice, who wrote a peer-reviewed paper on the meaning of words, called "Meaning" in which he used the phrase "and yet" twice. And just to be sure that David would understand this was not a fluke, I found another paper of the same title by a different philosopher of Language, Kent Bach, who used the phrase four times. His paper contains this sentence:
Some words clearly have meanings and yet their meanings are not clear.

These are two Philosophers of Language, writing peer-reviewed papers on the meaning of words, who used the phrase "and yet" six times in those two papers. Here is the link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59348#post59348) to the post where I presented this information.

I then wrote a post titled Famous Fools who disagreed with David M (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59349#post59349) in which I cited examples of "and yet" found in quotes from William Shakespeare, Galileo Galilei, Lewis Carol, and JESUS CHRIST in the KJV.

Then I wrote a post called David M charges himself with folly (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59351#post59351) in which I quoted many of his own posts that used "and yet" before he decided it was "bad grammar" in his desperate effort to avoid admitting he was wrong. I did a search in the database and found that he had used the phrase 277 times before the debate began. Of his total posts at the time, 16% contained that phrase! He used it all the time because he is always talking about "contradictions" that prove his fringe doctrines are true and traditional Christianity is false.

And how did he respond to all this evidence? Here it is (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59476#post59476)):
As usual you are enjoying sidetracking from answering the evidence presented. Your argument should not be with me, but with the people who have written on the websites where the explanation of the words; "and yet" have been given. You have to say why they are not acceptable. I am already letting you off by saying it was not your intention. You remain stubborn to the fact that you will not change the words of your formulation. You have agreed to drop the word "yet". That does nothing to change the construction of your sentence. You are now trying to avoid the ambiguity I was drawing your attention to. By dropping the "yet", you have shown me that your original words had a superfluous (ambiguous) word in it and therefore was not the most succinct formulation you could have done. You have proved yourself incorrect, even though this is a very minor point.
That was it. He didn't deal with any of the evidence I presented. He dodged and made false accusations, as always.

I then posted the Definition of "yet" from the Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary which uses the phrase "and yet" (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=60428#post60428)):
yet: conjuction
Meaning: despite what has just been said
Synonym: nevertheless
Examples: It's a small car, yet it's surprisingly spacious. He has a good job, and yet he never seems to have any money.
David responded by saying (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=60487#post60487)):
For all that you have shown (and I will not copy it again to save space) what you write does not change much. I see you have quoted the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary and not the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. That is the dictionary that is the most definitive and that is the one I thought you were using . If necessary, I will go to the reference library and have a look. It is surprising that in the Advanced Learners Dictionary they us a double conjunction.
David complained it was not the "Concise Oxford English Dictionary" which is supposedly "most definitive." So I found an online copy and posted this pic of the definition of "though" (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=60501#post60501)):

1331

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary gives "and yet" as one of the definitions of "though."

And then I quoted the introduction to the 100th anniversary edition in which the editor of the dictionary used "and yet."

And then I quoted the original 1911 version and showed its editor also happened to use "and yet" in the introduction.

So there it is. David has never responded to any of this evidence, but clings to his three random and entirely non-authoritative webpages (one of which is nothing but an anonymous comment!) as sufficient reason to exalt himself above all the greatest authors and authorities of the English language, declaring them all to be guilty of using "bad grammar."

Richard

David M
10-23-2014, 02:12 AM
So there it is. David has never responded to any of this evidence, but clings to his three random and entirely non-authoritative webpages (one of which is nothing but an anonymous comment!) as sufficient reason to exalt himself above all the greatest authors and authorities of the English language, declaring them all to be guilty of using "bad grammar."

In response to Richard's long summary, I need to add one or two things which Richard has left out.

Though I was uncomfortable with Richard's formulation of the paradox, which I could see was supporting his conclusion (which you have to know about first), Richard has never been willing to write the paradox in any other way. This has been less about what the paradox is, and more about the grammar of his sentence. Because of changing language and common usage, what is technically incorrect grammar is now acceptable as an idiom. The double conjunctive used by Richard has another meaning to what Richard might have intended. If only for that one reason of not using a phrase that can be interpreted another way, Richard's sentence could be re-worded. In fact, Richard admitted the "and" conjunctive was superfluous and therefore finally omitted it.

I mistakenly took Richard to be a Wordsmith and stood corrected by Richard. I do not claim to be a Wordsmith and I have to check words out. It was Richard's insistence that he formulated the paradox "succinctly" and with "precision" I could not agree. His admission to using a superfluous word means that he failed to be as succinct as he claims. That might seem like a small point and petty, but if you are going to make a bold claim, then you have to live up to it. If there is anything in a sentence which is ambiguous to the reader, then it makes sense to remove it and write an alternative form of words.

Richard claims I have not given him evidence. If you have read all the posts, then you will know that is not true. I am expected now to find the post or the link to get to the website which told me "and yet" was not good grammar and had another meaning to what is intended. It is easy to Google the phrase and do your own research of the subject. Here is a link to be going on with; http://grammarist.com/usage/and-yet/

"and yet" has become so common in usage, I have even been using it, but now having learned about its incorrect use, I try to correct myself when I catch myself using it out of habit. The fact that "and yet" is used so frequently used does not make it correct, even when used in the dictionary to explain other words. What you will not find in a dictionary is "and yet" listed and a meaning given for it. I have to accept that old standards are being eroded, and I am "old school" in many respects.

The formulation of the paradox as; "God's will is done in heaven and yet God's Angels could sin", I do not see "could" used in the subjunctive. Richard has resorted to explaining that his formulation is using the subjunctive. He includes the formulation as part of a subjunctive clause by saying; "there would be a paradox if ...". "would" is used in the subjunctive; "could" is not".

I shall find it interesting if you think there is an apparent paradox between Matthew 6:10 and 2 Peter 2:4 and to read your formulation of the paradox if you would be so bold as to give your statement of it. If you think there is no paradox, then maybe you can give your reasons and we can see if they are the same as Richard's.

David

Richard Amiel McGough
10-23-2014, 07:24 AM
Though I was uncomfortable with Richard's formulation of the paradox, which I could see was supporting his conclusion (which you have to know about first), Richard has never been willing to write the paradox in any other way.

That's not true David. I have rewritten it many different ways in my effort to help you understand basic grammar and logic. Indeed, I wrote it so many different ways that you COMPLAINED that I was "changing my words." Your response is literally insane. You complained if I included the word "yet" and then complained that I changed my words and was being inconsistent when I removed it (in concession to your demands, no less)!



This has been less about what the paradox is, and more about the grammar of his sentence. Because of changing language and common usage, what is technically incorrect grammar is now acceptable as an idiom.

It is not an idiom. I explained this many times and you just ignored me and continued repeating your error.



The double conjunctive used by Richard has another meaning to what Richard might have intended. If only for that one reason of not using a phrase that can be interpreted another way, Richard's sentence could be re-worded. In fact, Richard admitted the "and" conjunctive was superfluous and therefore finally omitted it.

It does not have "another" meaning. Its the same meaning stated in different words and for a different context (when "And yet" is used at the beginning of a sentence.) Your arguments are ludicrous beyond description. That's why you adamantly refuse to follow anything like a logical train of thought, as I showed in my post above.

I did not ever omit the "and" - I chose to omit the "yet". And I did not do that because it was "superfluous" but because you refused to accept it as valid English, despited the fact that all the greatest authors and authorities of the English language say it is correct and good grammar.



Richard claims I have not given him evidence. If you have read all the posts, then you will know that is not true. I am expected now to find the post or the link to get to the website which told me "and yet" was not good grammar and had another meaning to what is intended. It is easy to Google the phrase and do your own research of the subject. Here is a link to be going on with; http://grammarist.com/usage/and-yet/

No David, you are not "expected now to find the post or the link to get to the website." I provided it for you in the post you are supposedly answering. Now I see that you didn't even read it! I posted all three of the links you cited and included a link to your original post:



And this brings us to the topic of this thread. Is the phrase "and yet" grammatically incorrect and ambiguous? David has appealed to three websites to support his claim (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59188#post59188)). Here they are:


http://grammarist.com/usage/and-yet/ - This page merely said "and yet is redundant, and and could usually be cut." It speaks of style. Says nothing about any "ambiguity" or grammatical error.
http://painintheenglish.com/case/4314 - This one is quite a hoot. David quoted one anonymous comment in the comment stream under the article that said "and yet is redundant." It said nothing of grammar, only of style. It also incorrectly described the phrase as "idiomatic" - an error that David has repeated many times even though I have repeatedly explained why it was false.
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/subjunctive-verbs?page=all - David completely misunderstood this page. It said nothing that supported his claims.

That's it. That's the sum of David's citations that were supposed to prove his case.


You never presented any evidence that would justify your ludicrous assertion that Merriam-Webster, the Oxford Dictionary, the KJV, Shakespeare, and leading professors of the philosophy of language are all wrong about "and yet." Your comments are utterly, totally, and completely insane. Batshit crazy.

You are just repeating the same errors over and over and over again like you have been for years without even reading the post you are supposedly answering.



"and yet" has become so common in usage, I have even been using it, but now having learned about its incorrect use, I try to correct myself when I catch myself using it out of habit. The fact that "and yet" is used so frequently used does not make it correct, even when used in the dictionary to explain other words. What you will not find in a dictionary is "and yet" listed and a meaning given for it. I have to accept that old standards are being eroded, and I am "old school" in many respects.

Your comment is utterly insane. The phrase "and yet" is definitely "old school." It was used by Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare, the KJV! What are you freaking babbling about? You never presented any evidence that it was "bad grammar." You were in the most excellent company with the greatest English authors when you used "and yet" in 277 posts on this forum before you decided it was "bad grammar."

:doh:

David M
10-24-2014, 03:23 AM
Hello Richard
This conversation is not going to move on until you answer the questions waiting to be answered. I will respond to your repetitious remarks.

That's not true David. I have rewritten it many different ways in my effort to help you understand basic grammar and logic. Indeed, I wrote it so many different ways that you COMPLAINED that I was "changing my words." Your response is literally insane. You complained if I included the word "yet" and then complained that I changed my words and was being inconsistent when I removed it (in concession to your demands, no less)!Then stick with the revised wording and stop bringing up the phrase "and yet". Be consistent. I have given you what I consider to be the simplest contradictory propositions. If you do not agree, then simplify them more.



It is not an idiom. I explained this many times and you just ignored me and continued repeating your error.I have given you links to websites in which others say that "and yet" is an idiom. You might not want to recognize it as such, but the fact that others interpret it as such, is reason to remove the phrase and write something without any ambiguity.



It does not have "another" meaning. Its the same meaning stated in different words and for a different context (when "And yet" is used at the beginning of a sentence.) Your arguments are ludicrous beyond description. That's why you adamantly refuse to follow anything like a logical train of thought, as I showed in my post above.Once again, I am presenting evidence found on other websites. It is no worse than you quoting the Book of Enoch. If we disagree on these sources of reference, then we must agree to leave them out. We are searching for a common root of understanding. Eventually we have to get to the source of the problem. The problems all stem from the vagueness of language and double meanings of words.



I did not ever omit the "and" - I chose to omit the "yet". And I did not do that because it was "superfluous" but because you refused to accept it as valid English, despited the fact that all the greatest authors and authorities of the English language say it is correct and good grammar.I stand corrected if that is the case. Whichever word is dropped, it proves to me that you were not as you claim succinct in what you had written. You were superfluous with words. This argument is not about the actual paradox.


No David, you are not "expected now to find the post or the link to get to the website." I provided it for you in the post you are supposedly answering. Now I see that you didn't even read it! I posted all three of the links you cited and included a link to your original post:I read your post, but I did not look up the links This is time-wasting as it is. Also remember, that your recent posts have not been addressed to me, but to our audience explaining what has taken place. If you want me to answer a specific point, then please quote an extract from the page the link takes us to.


You never presented any evidence that would justify your ludicrous assertion that Merriam-Webster, the Oxford Dictionary, the KJV, Shakespeare, and leading professors of the philosophy of language are all wrong about "and yet." Your comments are utterly, totally, and completely insane. Batshit crazy.I cannot present evidence not found. I replied to you that "and yet" is not listed in any of the dictionaries I have or I can find online. I am not subscribing to Oxford or Merriam. You can copy and paste the definition of "and yet" from Oxford and Merriam and then I can comment. It also has to be taken into account all the other information that we find relating to the words "and yet".


You are just repeating the same errors over and over and over again like you have been for years without even reading the post you are supposedly answering.Why then do you not stay on track and answer my questions to keep on drilling down. I am not for repeating as you seem to keep on wanting to do.



Your comment is utterly insane. The phrase "and yet" is definitely "old school." It was used by Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare, the KJV! What are you freaking babbling about? You never presented any evidence that it was "bad grammar." You were in the most excellent company with the greatest English authors when you used "and yet" in 277 posts on this forum before you decided it was "bad grammar." One hundred wrongs do not make a right, so why would a thousand? Look at all the websites that can be found on Google when "and yet" is searched for. Just because something becomes acceptable does not mean it is correct. I have given you sufficient evidence/reason to change the phrase "and yet". You have argued in this post (above) that you dropped the "yet", so why are you continuing to argue over these other points? In the other post I am waiting for your answers, I have asked you also why you have used the word "could". I am waiting for your answer.

For one who claims to deal with only Logic and Facts, you betray yourself when given the facts.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough
10-24-2014, 05:54 PM
I have given you links to websites in which others say that "and yet" is an idiom. You might not want to recognize it as such, but the fact that others interpret it as such, is reason to remove the phrase and write something without any ambiguity.

You have never presented any authoritative sites that say "and yet" is an idiom. You have presented two links to support that assertion.


http://painintheenglish.com/case/4314 - in reference to an entirely unauthoritative anonymous comment in the comment stream, which was contradicted by four other commentaters!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiom?s=t - the definition of idiom

Here is the explanation I gave in post #279 almost exactly one year ago on October 31, 2013 concerning the first link:


Good evening David,

Your assertion that my examples are not from "authoritative English language websites to do with English grammar" is altogether false. I cited the Oxford Dictionary, which is generally considered the most authoritative source for information relating to the English language on the planet. I also cited Philip B. Corbett of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/business/media/29asktheeditors.html?pagewanted=all) who is in charge of revisions of their grammar book called "The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: The Official Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most Authoritative Newspaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Manual_of_Style_and_Usage)." Your assertion that the examples I gave contained "mistakes" is also altogether false. You have not shown any error of any kind. Your assertions are entirely empty of content. And worse, you cited a mere comment by an anonymous user on a blog as your "authoritative source! And not only that, but other users in that thread contradicted the opinion of that anonymous user! Here are some examples from the comment stream (http://painintheenglish.com/case/4314) that you cited as "authoritative" -


nigel - "And yet" is idiomatic. "Yet" on its own (or with a semicolon), as a conjunction, is not incorrect, but it seems a little stilted to me.
douglas.bryant - Nigel is correct: "and yet" is a perfectly acceptable idiom. Where would Lerner and Loewe have been without it?
porsche - "And yet" is no worse than "and then", "and so", "and still", etc., etc. In most cases, the "and" can be removed and the sentence is still clear, but that doesn't mean that the "and" is wrong or even redundant. In "and yet", yet usually means "in spite of". "And" means "in addition to". The two notions are different but not exclusive of each other, so if I want to describe a second occurrence that happens in spite of a first occurrence and also want to stress that the second occurrence happens in addition to the first one, then "and yet" is the perfect means.
Warsaw Will - I'm with porsche, JMMB, nigel and douglas.bryant. And so, it would seem, are quite a few dictionaries. Here are few sentences given as examples as how to use 'yet': He has a good job, and yet he never seems to have any money. (Oxford Advanced Learner's). He's overweight and bald, (and) yet somehow, he's attractive. (Cambridge) She does not speak our language and yet she seems to understand what we say. (Longman's)

You cited one comment in that comment stream and declared it to be more authoritative than the Oxford Dictionary and the New York Times editor of their manual on grammar and all the other examples I gave.

You never responded to these facts. All you did was cite the definition of an idiom (the second link I mentioned above), and then declare that "and yet" was an idiom even though it does not fit the definition. I explained this to you in post #307 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=60609#post60609) on December 28, 2013:





Two matters have now arisen. The first stumbling block is the ambiguity of the phrase "and yet". It is an idiom and is not defined in the dictionary ( not that I have not found yet). The words "and" and "yet" are in the dictionary, but not defined together. They are two different conjunctions; one is additive and the other is contrasting. I find no example of two conjunctions like this being used together, except for the accepted idiomatic use. The fact is; Richard refuses to accept the alternative meaning of those two words together that are an idiomatic expression. To be clear with one's writing, the use of those two words used together should be avoided. The fact that idiomatically the two words together is accepted, is the reason it appears to have been used a lot by writers who are deemed "professional" writers. That does not alter the fact they use incorrect grammar. Apart from the avoidance of bad grammar, the two words together have an alternative meaning, which to state once again is; "That maybe so, but .."

Good morning David,

It appears that you don't understand the meaning of "idiom". Here it is:

idiom: an expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of its separate words but that has a separate meaning of its own

The phrase "and yet" is not an idiom. Anyone who understands the meaning of "and" and "yet" can understand "and yet" perfectly, with no ambiguity of any kind.

If you disagree, you need to state clearly the precise "idiomatic" meaning of "and yet". The words "that may be so, but" is not an alternative meaning. It's just another way of saying the same thing with different words. The meanings are the same.

And this, by the way, is why the dictionaries don't generally define "and yet". It has no meaning apart from the meaning of the two words that comprise it. If it were an idiom, I can guarantee that it would be included in the dictionaries. PWNED.

You say that I "refuse to accept the alternative meaning"? Don't be ridiculous. I accepted the meaning "That may be so, but". Can't you say even one word that is true?

Cheers!

Richard

That's it. You never presented any reason anyone should accept your assertion that "and yet" is an idiom or that it is "ambiguous." You have never cited any authoritative source supporting your assertions.


Once again, I am presenting evidence found on other websites. It is no worse than you quoting the Book of Enoch. If we disagree on these sources of reference, then we must agree to leave them out. We are searching for a common root of understanding. Eventually we have to get to the source of the problem. The problems all stem from the vagueness of language and double meanings of words.

I think it would be great if we could find agreement. All you need to do is accept what the greatest authors and highest authorities of the English language have stated. Here are some representative samples:

Merriam-Websters Dictionary:
paradox 2b: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
yet: conjuction
Meaning: despite what has just been said
Synonym: nevertheless
Examples: It's a small car, yet it's surprisingly spacious. He has a good job, and yethe never seems to have any money.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary:

1336

The Greek New Testament (from the Emphatic Diaglott):

1337

Jesus Christ in the King James Bible:
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Etc., etc., etc. I have presented you with a veritable mountain of evidence from the greatest authors and highest authorities of the English language. You have countered with nothing but empty rhetoric and a stubborn refusal to even respond to the evidence I have repeatedly presented.



I stand corrected if that is the case. Whichever word is dropped, it proves to me that you were not as you claim succinct in what you had written. You were superfluous with words. This argument is not about the actual paradox.

I never claimed it was "succinct." You have repeated this error many times. I corrected it last year on December 28, 2013 - after having previous corrected it a number of times. Here's the post:




Hello Richard
I have been to the link you have given and whilst there, I typed into the search box the words "and yet". The only search term suggested or found is the expression; "so near and yet so far". Is that sentence idiomatic? Here is their definition of the phrase; a rueful comment on someone’s narrow failure to achieve an aim That definition sums up your formulation a treat.

Maybe we should get the author of the website arguing against the use of the two conjunctive words used together, to talk to the author behind the Oxford Dictionaries website. I am not sure the Oxford Dictionaries website is giving unpaid access to the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

This is no longer about what the paradox is or what you intend to say; it is about your stubbornness to continue to think that you have been so succinct and precise that the paradox could not be written in any other way, so as to have no ambiguity or grammatical error whatsoever,

What next?

All the best
David
Good morning David,

I have never said nor implied that my formulation was the most "succinct." Never. Not once. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated that it would be more succinct to drop the "yet" but it is good to include it because it "adds clarity at the expense of an extra word." You have been repeating this falsehood over and over and over again, no matter how my times I expose your error. Indeed, I told you this in my last post, and you are repeating your falsehood yet again! What is wrong with you? Don't you realize what this says about your character?

And neither have I ever said or implied that it "could not be written any other way". On the contrary, I have explicitly and repeatedly told you that it could be written more succinctly by dropping the "yet" and you know this because you complained when I dropped it and complained when I included it. Do you really think I'm going to let you lie to my face? What is wrong with you?

You ignored everything I wrote in my last response. I proved that your attempt to create ambiguity by snipping out a sentence fragment from my formulation was totally freaking insane and implied the exact opposite of what I was actually saying. And now you have confirmed your insanity, because you have presented your own "formulation" of the paradox which is logically identical to the fragment that you snipped from mine, which you totally reject because it is supposedly a "subliminal" way to "resolve" the paradox -

David's own formulation: God's will is done in heaven. God's angels sin.

David's understanding of Richard's: God's will is done in heaven. That may be so, but God's angels could sin.

Their meanings are FREAKING IDENTICAL! You say that my formulation implies that there is no paradox? Great! Why doesn't yours imply the same thing? They both say that God's will is done in heaven. They both say that God's angels sin. So what is the difference? You need to explain this. You need to explain why you reject my formulation when, according to you, it is logically identical to yours.

All the best,

Richard


You complain that my posts are repetitious? Well here's the reason: you keep repeating the same errors no matter how many times they have been corrected! I brought this to you attention last year! Even then, you were repeating this error, and now you are repeating it yet again. You are the definition of incorrigible David. You simply refuse to learn. You are by far the most stubbornly stupid person I have ever encountered.

Here is my explanation yet again. Please read it this time (maybe it will help if I highlight bold blue):

I have never said nor implied that my formulation was the most "succinct." Never. Not once. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated that it would be more succinct to drop the "yet" but it is good to include it because it "adds clarity at the expense of an extra word." You have been repeating this falsehood over and over and over again, no matter how my times I expose your error. Indeed, I told you this in my last post, and you are repeating your falsehood yet again! What is wrong with you? Don't you realize what this says about your character?

Do you get it? I've been explaining this one point for over a year, yet you continue to repeat the same error. You are by far the most stubbornly stupid person I have ever encountered.

But I'm glad you repeated that error, because it brought to my attention another error you have been repeating ad naseum, ad infinitum. You claim that there is some "ambiguity" in my formulation and so insisted that we should follow yours. But in the post above, I proved they were logically identical, which reveals the utter absurdity of your whole point.







Richard claims I have not given him evidence. If you have read all the posts, then you will know that is not true. I am expected now to find the post or the link to get to the website which told me "and yet" was not good grammar and had another meaning to what is intended. It is easy to Google the phrase and do your own research of the subject. Here is a link to be going on with; http://grammarist.com/usage/and-yet/

No David, you are not "expected now to find the post or the link to get to the website." I provided it for you in the post you are supposedly answering. Now I see that you didn't even read it! I posted all three of the links you cited and included a link to your original post:

I read your post, but I did not look up the links This is time-wasting as it is. Also remember, that your recent posts have not been addressed to me, but to our audience explaining what has taken place. If you want me to answer a specific point, then please quote an extract from the page the link takes us to.

All right David. That proves it. You are utterly delusional and are willing to say whatever it takes to justify your bullshit. You - YOU - are the one who took time to complain that I had left those freaking links out when in fact I had not! You are the one who took time to go look for the link that I had actually included in the post so you wouldn't have to go looking for it. You are the one who started his post by saying that you were including things I supposedly left out, like that link that you didn't need to include. You are utterly totally absolutely freaking insane!

Any attempt to reason with you is time wasting because you repeat the same errors year after year, no matter how many times they have been exposed and explained. There is nothing more tedious and vain that trying to reason with you David. You reject all the greatest authors and highest authorities of the English language. You appear to be literally insane.





You never presented any evidence that would justify your ludicrous assertion that Merriam-Webster, the Oxford Dictionary, the KJV, Shakespeare, and leading professors of the philosophy of language are all wrong about "and yet." Your comments are utterly, totally, and completely insane. Batshit crazy.
I cannot present evidence not found.

Damn straight! You have no evidence, and that's why you can't present it. Why do you refuse to admit the truth that everyone can see?



I replied to you that "and yet" is not listed in any of the dictionaries I have or I can find online. I am not subscribing to Oxford or Merriam. You can copy and paste the definition of "and yet" from Oxford and Merriam and then I can comment. It also has to be taken into account all the other information that we find relating to the words "and yet".

I've already explained this a million times. The definition of "and yet" is not listed separately because it is not an idiom. It's meaning is derived from the meaning of the words "and" and "yet." Anyone who knows the meaning of those words can understand the meaning of "and yet."

But the phrase "and yet" is used in the dictionaries. Merriam-Websters uses it in the freaking DEFINITION of paradox. I have presented the evidence. You assertions are literally insane.



Why then do you not stay on track and answer my questions to keep on drilling down. I am not for repeating as you seem to keep on wanting to do.

BULLSHIT! You have been repeating - over and over and over again - the same errors I exposed and corrected over and over and over again.

There is something seriously wrong with your brain David.

Richard

Guido Fawkes
10-24-2014, 06:16 PM
Richard,

I've been reading the banter between you and David for the last couple of days. Have you considered that perhaps David is trolling you? David's posts seem legitimate on the surface, and yet he seems to be unwilling to accept material from some of academia's most trusted scholarly sources. Seriously, who does not use Webster's dictionary? I can't think of a legitimate reason to disallow it as scholarly source material.

Guido Fawkes
10-24-2014, 07:12 PM
And yet
When you find yourself using the phrase and yet, consider whether any meaning would be lost ifand were dropped. When yet is used as a conjunction, and yet is redundant, and and could usually be cut. For example, and serves no purpose in this sentence:

The numbers do offer a sobering picture, and yet it’s far from all gloom and doom.
And yet is commonly used to start sentences. In some cases, the usage comes from unfounded bias against using yet to start a sentence.

And yet no one would bet against Jobs being on this list in 10 years’ time. (Independent)
Here, there would be nothing wrong with,

Yet no one would bet against Jobs being on the list in 10 years’ time.
Elsewhere, and yet at the start of a sentence is rhetorical shorthand, often followed by a command usually meaning, “That may be so, but…”

Ms. Hill, a 50-year-old voice-over actress, said she had been feeling a spiritual drift away from Christmas for several years. And yet, each December she continued to go through the motions of sending out holiday cards, decorating the house, buying gifts. (New York Times)
This use of and yet is less questionable because it’s a common figure of speech.
And yet is not always redundant. When yet is an adverb, and yet works fine—for example:

It is also expected that tax rises and spending cuts, both those already announced and yet to come, will weigh heavily on the economy. (The Sunday Times)


Clearly there are occasions when using "and yet" is grammatically correct.

If I were required to define every word I use when debating with an opponent, I would immediately run into an infinite recursion problem. Computer programmers often run into a similar problem when coding software, they keep tweaking the code because they are never satisfied with the elegance of the code that they have written. Any college computer programming class will teach a new programmer that you eventually have to settle for good enough - otherwise you will just keep tweaking and never actually release any new programs.

Just like computer language, with the written English language you eventually have to settle on good enough - or the conversation will never progress.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-24-2014, 07:22 PM
Richard,

I've been reading the banter between you and David for the last couple of days. Have you considered that perhaps David is trolling you? David's posts seem legitimate on the surface, and yet he seems to be unwilling to accept material from some of academia's most trusted scholarly sources. Seriously, who does not use Webster's dictionary? I can't think of a legitimate reason to disallow it as scholarly source material.
Hey there Mark,

I'm glad you joined the conversation. I could use a sanity break.

I can see why you might think David is just a troll; he certainly fits the profile in many ways. But I don't think that is the correct diagnosis. He appears to desire serious discourse concerning his religious beliefs. But his beliefs are way out on the fringe of the Christian tradition so he needs to justify them by "properly interpreting" the Bible, which in practice means making up utterly unjustifiable rationalizations involving all sorts of improbable assumptions and twisted, inconsistent logic. I engage him because I once was a deluded believer and am very interested in how people delude themselves with religion. It's part of my healing process. And I really enjoy logic so talking with David evokes the same kind of morbid fascination as a train wreck. I just can't believe that anyone could be as stubbornly stupid as he has chosen to be. He could drop it in a moment and choose to engage me in rational discourse without evasions, diversions, and perversions of logic. It's entirely up to him. I'm willing to push it till he breaks and chooses the path of light, life, and truth or quits posting. It's his choice.

Or maybe I just have a perverse desire to see how deep his perversity will go. Like watching a person commit intellectual suicide in slow motion.

On the other hand - David's perversity has to die if he ever is to be free. So perhaps I am trying to save him. It would be an awesome thing indeed if someone with David's amazing persistence chose to persist in the path of truth! It could change the world.

As for the dictionaries. He doesn't just "disallow" them. He declares that they are wrong! And what is his justification? A mere comment by an anonymous poster in a comment stream that was contradicted by four other posters in the same thread! That's it. That's what he thinks justifies his assertion that the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and the Oxford Concise English Dictionary are all using "bad grammar." And it's not just the dictionaries that he charges with error. He says that Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth I, and the King James Bible (which uses "and yet" 35 times) are all using "bad grammar." And he extends his crusade against all authority, ignoring the fact that two leading professors in the philosophy of language, Paul Grice and Ken Bach, both used the phrase "and yet" in peer-reviewed papers discussing the meaning of words. And the ultimate irony, of course, is that he himself used the phrase "and yet" 277 times (in 16% of his posts) before he decided it was "bad grammar" in his vain effort to justify his rejection of something that I wrote.

There is a fascinating history that explains his hysteria. He is very challenged when it comes to basic logic and language, yet his fringe religious beliefs are utterly dependent upon extravagant interpretations that were invented for him by some linguistically talented cult leaders such as Dr. John Thomas, founder of the Christadelphians. As far as I can tell, he is trying to defend their teachings but simply doesn't have the requisite intellectual resources. So he resorts to rhetoric, evasions, diversion, and when necessary, outright lies.

Again, I'm really glad you stopped by. It would help A LOT if you would drop occasional one-liners if you see any egregious violations of logic or fact. David needs many witnesses to help him see the error of his ways. He chose long ago to ignore anything I say, even if I am quoting the leading authorities.

Simply stated, I could really use some help here.

Great chatting!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
10-24-2014, 07:34 PM
Clearly there are occasions when using "and yet" is grammatically correct.

Ain't no doubt about that!

Now the $64,000 question is: Is it ever grammatically incorrect to use and yet? I have never seen an example of when it would be a grammatical error to use those words. And I've never seen an example of any ambiguity caused by them.



If I were required to define every word I use when debating with an opponent, I would immediately run into an infinite recursion problem.

That is correct. And more to the point - people who habitual dispute the use of commonly understood words (words they themselves used 277 times before declaring it was "bad grammar") typically are trying to avoid some obvious truth by spewing out an cloud of confusion like a startled squid.



Computer programmers often run into a similar problem when coding software, they keep tweaking the code because they are never satisfied with the elegance of the code that they have written. Any college computer programming class will teach a new programmer that you eventually have to settle for good enough - otherwise you will just keep tweaking and never actually release any new programs.

Just like computer language, with the written English language you eventually have to settle on good enough - or the conversation will never progress.
I agree that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to establish an absolute foundation for the meaning of words since words are typically defined by other words. Perhaps there is a foundational set of primary concepts that are "indicated" by "pointing" to the thing itself, without words? I don't know - the foundation of linguistics is not for the faint-hearted or linguistically challenged. Thankfully, such concepts are not necessary for the kind of things we usually are discussing in this forum ... and certainly not for the religious dogmas that David wants to establish, like the idea that "God's Angels" could never sin under any circumstance. Shit! We don't even have any reason to believe there are angles! :doh:

Richard

Guido Fawkes
10-24-2014, 08:23 PM
Ok, so the original question on this thread was, “Is ‘and yet’ grammatically incorrect and ambiguous?

This should really be addressed as two mutually exclusive questions.

1. Is “and yet” grammatically incorrect?
2. Is “and yet” ambiguous?

I feel fairly confident that I’ve satisfactorily answered the first question in my previous posts. The grammatical correctness of “and yet” depends on how it is used in the sentence. Knowing this leads to another question. Does using “and yet” in a grammatically incorrect way make a fundamental change to the meaning of a sentence? I have never seen an example of it doing so. Perhaps someone could demonstrate its use in a sentence that clearly changes the fundamental meaning of the sentence, until then – I’m going to stick with NO.

As to the second question, is “and yet” ambiguous? Again, I can think of no use of “and yet” which is ambiguous. One would think that if “and yet” were itself ambiguous one would not use it in a treatise which speaks of the topic of “The Ethics of Ambiguity”. Yet, in 1947 Simone de Beauvoir wrote a treatise with this exact title. In his treatise, Beauvoir used “and yet” three times in the natural course of his writing to describe the ethics of ambiguity. In none of the three instances did he use the words “and yet” as an example of ambiguity. Following are excerpts of the three instances in which Beauvoir used “and yet”:
Each one has the incomparable taste in his mouth of his own life, and yet each feels himself more insignificant than an insect within the immense collectivity whose limits are one with the earth’s.

Lenin refuses to set up ethics abstractly because he means to realize it effectively. And yet a moral idea is present in the words, writings, and acts of Marxists.

It regards as privileged situations those which permit it to realize itself as indefinite movement; that is, it wishes to pass beyond everything which limits its power; and yet, this power is always limited.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/ambiguity/ch01.htm

I would think it strange for a man writing about the ethics of ambiguity to purposely use a phrase that is itself an ambiguity – unless the phrase is not actually ambiguous.

Another webpage which is dedicated to Language Ambiguity itself also used “and yet” to describe the word Paradox.
Paradox: A statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true; a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true; an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises.
http://translationjournal.net/journal/23ambiguity.htm

Again, I would think that a page dedicated to helping others to understand language ambiguity would not intentionally use a phrase it knows to be ambiguous – unless the phrase is not actually ambiguous.

So, is “and yet” ambiguous? I don’t think it is.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-24-2014, 09:45 PM
Ok, so the original question on this thread was, “Is ‘and yet’ grammatically incorrect and ambiguous?

This should really be addressed as two mutually exclusive questions.

1. Is “and yet” grammatically incorrect?
2. Is “and yet” ambiguous?

I feel fairly confident that I’ve satisfactorily answered the first question in my previous posts. The grammatical correctness of “and yet” depends on how it is used in the sentence. Knowing this leads to another question. Does using “and yet” in a grammatically incorrect way make a fundamental change to the meaning of a sentence? I have never seen an example of it doing so. Perhaps someone could demonstrate its use in a sentence that clearly changes the fundamental meaning of the sentence, until then – I’m going to stick with NO.

I agree that there are actually two questions. I was thinking I should probably change the title to "Is 'and yet' grammatically incorrect and/or ambiguous?"

I think I'll do that.

I am curious what you were thinking when you said that the "grammatical correctness of “and yet” depends on how it is used in the sentence" - that make sounds like you are suggesting that there are some sentences where "and yet" would be grammatically incorrect, as opposed to "and" or "yet" being used individually. Cany you think of any examples?



As to the second question, is “and yet” ambiguous? Again, I can think of no use of “and yet” which is ambiguous. One would think that if “and yet” were itself ambiguous one would not use it in a treatise which speaks of the topic of “The Ethics of Ambiguity”. Yet, in 1947 Simone de Beauvoir wrote a treatise with this exact title. In his treatise, Beauvoir used “and yet” three times in the natural course of his writing to describe the ethics of ambiguity. In none of the three instances did he use the words “and yet” as an example of ambiguity. Following are excerpts of the three instances in which Beauvoir used “and yet”:
Each one has the incomparable taste in his mouth of his own life, and yet each feels himself more insignificant than an insect within the immense collectivity whose limits are one with the earth’s.

Lenin refuses to set up ethics abstractly because he means to realize it effectively. And yet a moral idea is present in the words, writings, and acts of Marxists.

It regards as privileged situations those which permit it to realize itself as indefinite movement; that is, it wishes to pass beyond everything which limits its power; and yet, this power is always limited.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/ambiguity/ch01.htm

I would think it strange for a man writing about the ethics of ambiguity to purposely use a phrase that is itself an ambiguity – unless the phrase is not actually ambiguous.

Another webpage which is dedicated to Language Ambiguity itself also used “and yet” to describe the word Paradox.
Paradox: A statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true; a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true; an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises.
http://translationjournal.net/journal/23ambiguity.htm

Again, I would think that a page dedicated to helping others to understand language ambiguity would not intentionally use a phrase it knows to be ambiguous – unless the phrase is not actually ambiguous.

So, is “and yet” ambiguous? I don’t think it is.
Excellent explanation and examples. :thumb:

Hummm ... three "exes" in a row. If I were a paranoid Bible believing numerologist, I might find myself thinking about the root for the word "six" ... nevermind. :p

Back on topic: A brief Google search yielded two articles by leading philosophers of language - Paul Grice and Ken Bach - who both wrote peer-reviewed articles with the same title "Meaning" and who used between them the phrase "and yet" six times. (Grice two and Bach 4). Dang, there's that old "ex" again (Rev 13:18 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?bnum=66&cnum=13&vnum=18&SourceTxt=NA27&getverse=Go), Strong's Number 1803 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?bnum=66&cnum=4&vnum=8#) εξ (ex, pronounced "hex" - like a witches hex - eek! :eek: 1803 => 18/3 = 6 and 18 = 6 + 6 + 6!!!)

Ah ... reminds me of the good old days when I "knew" the Bible was "true" because of strange "coincidence" I cherry-picked from the infinite ocean of reality.

Back on topic ... again! Here is a quote from Bach (from post #283 in the thread that need not be named):





Folks, this is NOT evidence. This whole argument started over a paradox. David wants authoritative websites, I'll give him one.

According to Merriam-Webster the definition of a paradox is as follows.

1
: a tenet contrary to received opinion
2
a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true
c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3
: one (as a person, situation, or action) having seemingly contradictory qualities or phases

How is that for irony? "And yet" is so bad grammatically that Merriam uses it in there definition of a paradox. I find that absolutely hilarious.

I brought this to Davids attention in post #173 and he ignored it completely. http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=56640#post56640


He carefully quoted other parts of my post and IGNORED that devastating piece of evidence to his case. So we know he recognized it as devastating to his case.

The really sad part is that Richard and I have actually argued for Davids original point, while he has argued against his own argument.

Thank you L67 for point out the poor grammar used by Merriam-Webster and perhaps you should write to them and point this out. I shall get to answering Richard's post and I do not want to be diverted from that as I have more to say to Richard. Both he and you have not commented on the fact that was presented. Merriam-Webster can use idioms speech, that is not what the fact I presented was arguing against. It is the written word which should be more accurate. I am not claiming to be a word-smith like Richard claims he is and therefore Richard should know better. For a reminder and so everyone reading this know what evidence I gave for comment upon, here it is again;
http://painintheenglish.com/case/4314
April 3, 2010, 9:30am
"and yet" is redundant, grammatically. Each word is a coordinating conjunction, meant to coordinate. Therefore, both are battling to do the one job in the sentence. Only one should be used. The use of these words together as idiomatic in speech is fine, but in writing where we can be impeccably clear, the writer should decide: does he/she wish to emphasize addition (and) or contrast (yet). Then he/she can be most clear about the meaning conveyed in the sentence.

David
Hey there David,

I am at a loss for words. You have set yourself up as judge over all the grammatical authorities on the planet. You have charged Merriam Websters with grammatical error, and yet you cannot even state what that error is, let alone find even one authoritative source that agrees with you. You have rejected the definition given in the Oxford Dictionary. You have rejected the opinion of the editor of the New York Times grammar manual. And what do you present as the "evidence" that proves your case? One random comment by an anonymous blog user that was contradicted by almost all the other comments in that thread! And worse, his comment is not even relevant because he was only stating his opinion about style. He didn't say that the phrase "and yet" would cause any confusion about the meaning of the sentence.

So I've done a little more research and found the writings of famed philosopher Paul Grice. Here is his bio from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grice/):
Herbert Paul Grice, universally known as Paul, was born on March 13, 1913 in Birmingham, England and died on August 28, 1988 in Berkeley CA. Grice received firsts in classical honours moderation (1933) and literae humaniores (1935) from Corpus Christi College, Oxford. After a year teaching in a public school, he returned to Oxford where, with a nearly five year interruption for service in the Royal Navy, he taught in various positions until 1967 when he moved to the University of California-Berkeley. He taught there past his official 1979 retirement until his death in 1988. He was philosophically active until his death — holding discussions at his home, giving lectures and editing a collection of his work that was posthumously published as Studies in the Way of Words. He is best known for his innovative work in philosophy of language, but also made important contributions to metaphysics, ethics and to the study of Aristotle and Kant. His work has also been influential outside of philosophy in linguistics and artificial intelligence. Although relatively little work was published during his life, he had a very wide influence via lectures and unpublished manuscripts. The best known of these were the William James Lectures which he gave at Harvard in early 1967 and which circulated widely in unauthorized manuscript form until they were published as part of Studies in the Way of Words. He also played cricket, chess and piano, each at a very high level of accomplishment. A useful biography including both Grice's personal and professional life is Chapman 2005; the review by Potts provides more perspective on some of the points.

Grice was a highly respected professional philosopher of language. His work was published in professional journals, such as an article called "Meaning" in the Philosophical Review 66 (1957): 377-88 (http://www.ditext.com/grice/meaning.html). In that article, he used the phrase "and yet" twice in the following contexts (Note: these are quotes from a very advanced philosophical analysis of the idea of "meaning" and so they probably won't make any sense to you. If you want to understand his article, you should probably start with this explanation (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grice/) on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):
Will any kind of intended effect do, or may there be cases where an effect is intended (with the required qualifications) and yet we should not want to talk of meaningNN?

Similarly in nonlinguistic cases: if we are asking about an agent's intention, a previous expression counts heavily; nevertheless, a man might plan to throw a letter in the dustbin and yet take it to the post; when lifting his hand he might "come to" and say either "I didn't intend to do this at all" or "I suppose I must have been intending to put it in."

Grice was a professional PHILOSOPHER OF LANGUAGE who was published in the peer reviewed Philosophical Review. His use of the phrase "and yet" coheres perfectly with the authoritative sources I cited above (Merriam Websters, Oxford, New York Times). And yet you will continue to contest its meaning? You will continue to assert that all grammatical and linguistic authorities are wrong and you alone are correct concerning the grammar? Wow. Just wow. What more can I say?

I'll tell you "what more" I can say. I can quote a great cloud of authoritative witnesses who all declare with one voice that you are wrong. Here is another article by another professional philosopher of language, Kent Bach, also called "Meaning" and published in the ENCYLOPEDIA OF COGNITIVE SCIENCES (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/kbach/ECS-Meaning.htm). He used the phrase "and yet" four times in his article:


Some words clearly have meanings and yet their meanings are not clear.
The apparent conflict between the idea theory and the thing theory can be resolved by viewing them as answering two different questions: what confers meanings on words, and what comprises the meanings of words? This resolution distinguishes the cognitive contents of words, the ideas or concepts they express, and their semantic contents, what things (or properties or relations) they stand for. It respects the fact that words are used to talk about things, not ideas, and yet are used to express ideas.
The sense of an expression is its contribution to the thought expressed by a sentence in which it occurs. But words are used to refer to objects of thoughts, not ideas of those objects. Even so, since the same object can be thought of in different ways, under different 'modes of presentation', how the object is thought of, hence the sense of the expression used to refer to it, enters into the thought expressed. This explains, suggests Frege, how it is possible to think or say that Elton John is a singer and yet sincerely deny that Reginald Dwight is a singer, even though Elton John is Reginald Dwight.
Cognitive scientists, such as prototype theorists and developmental psychologists, often refer to people's conceptions of various types of things as 'concepts'. This usage is misleading, since conceptions are much richer than concepts and play different roles. Conceptions play a role in how people group and categorize things, judge similarities and differences between things, and form theories of things of different types, but concepts are what people associate with words in virtue of which words mean what they do. The difference is clear if we consider that people can have different conceptions of a given type of thing and yet use the same word to refer to it. For example, they can associate the same concept with the word 'tree' but have different conceptions of trees.

Kent Bach is an American philosopher and Professor of Philosophy at San Francisco State University. His primary areas of research include the philosophy of language, linguistics and epistemology. And he used the phrase "and yet" four times in his article on the philosophy of meaning of words.

David, you have no choice - you must admit the truth. You must admit your error. You have not presented even one professional, let alone authoritative, source that supports your opinion. You charge all the authorities with "grammatical error" but you have not even stated what that error is supposed to be except that one random blog comment said "and yet" was "redundant" (which is only a matter of style, not substance). I, on the other hand, have presented testimony from the leading linguistic authorities on the planet. Merriam Websters Dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary. Professional philosophers of linguistics published in major peer reviewed philosophical journals. You stand utterly alone in an empty wasteland, denying the nose on your own face. Please try to get a grip. This issue will never rest until you admit the truth.

All the best,

Richard

So there you have it. After presenting a veritable mountain of incontrovertible evidence, I told David that he "had no choice" and that he "must admit the truth." And how do you think he responded? Did he say a word about the evidence I presented? Nope! He said I was "sidetracking from answering the evidence presented." And what was the evidence? It was an anonymous comment by a random thread that was contradicted by four other anonymous posters! That was all he had to go on. A stunning display of hubris. Here is what he wrote:



As usual you are enjoying sidetracking from answering the evidence presented. Your argument should not be with me, but with the people who have written on the websites where the explanation of the words; "and yet" have been given. You have to say why they are not acceptable. I am already letting you off by saying it was not your intention. You remain stubborn to the fact that you will not change the words of your formulation. You have agreed to drop the word "yet". That does nothing to change the construction of your sentence. You are now trying to avoid the ambiguity I was drawing your attention to. By dropping the "yet", you have shown me that your original words had a superfluous (ambiguous) word in it and therefore was not the most succinct formulation you could have done. You have proved yourself incorrect, even though this is a very minor point.


And of course his assertion that I "remain stubborn" and "will not change the words" of the formulation could be be understood by some of the more sophisticate thinkers to contradict his reason for rejecting my new formulation, namely, that I had changed the words and was therefore "inconsistent." What a freaking freak!

Richard

Guido Fawkes
10-24-2014, 10:34 PM
I am curious what you were thinking when you said that the "grammatical correctness of ‘and yet’ depends on how it is used in the sentence" - that make sounds like you are suggesting that there are some sentences where "and yet" would be grammatically incorrect, as opposed to "and" or "yet" being used individually. Can you think of any examples?


Richard,

In one of my previous posts I quoted from a website < http://grammarist.com/usage/and-yet/> which gave an example of a grammatical error when using “and yet”.


And yet
When you find yourself using the phrase and yet, consider whether any meaning would be lost if and were dropped. When yet is used as a conjunction, and yet is redundant, and and could usually be cut. For example, and serves no purpose in this sentence:


The numbers do offer a sobering picture, and yet it’s far from all gloom and doom.


A grammatical errors does not necessary implies an error which change the fundamental meaning of a sentences. There were several grammatical errors, as well as errors in construction, in the previous sentence – but I bet you were still able to discern what it was I was trying to say. To be honest I’m not sure if the error quoted from the website should more correctly be considered an error in construction rather than a grammatical error.

Still, one of the problem with grammatical errors on the World Wide Web, is that some people who visit your site are not all native English speakers. When I was in the Army, I lived in Germany for three years. Learning formal German was difficult, it was even more difficult to actually speak to local Germans because I had not learned the colloquialisms that all of the local native Germans grew up with and therefore took for granted.

I’m not sure what’s going on here with David since he seems to understand the English language with a fair degree of competence. He may just have his knickers in a bunch and is looking for a little wiggle room.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-24-2014, 11:21 PM
Richard,

In one of my previous posts I quoted from a website < http://grammarist.com/usage/and-yet/> which gave an example of a grammatical error when using “and yet”.


And yet
When you find yourself using the phrase and yet, consider whether any meaning would be lost if and were dropped. When yet is used as a conjunction, and yet is redundant, and and could usually be cut. For example, and serves no purpose in this sentence:


The numbers do offer a sobering picture, and yet it’s far from all gloom and doom.


A grammatical errors does not necessary implies an error which change the fundamental meaning of a sentences. There were several grammatical errors, as well as errors in construction, in the previous sentence – but I bet you were still able to discern what it was I was trying to say. To be honest I’m not sure if the error quoted from the website should more correctly be considered an error in construction rather than a grammatical error.

At worst, a redundancy is an error in style, not grammar. So I don't think your example works.



Still, one of the problem with grammatical errors on the World Wide Web, is that some people who visit your site are not all native English speakers. When I was in the Army, I lived in Germany for three years. Learning formal German was difficult, it was even more difficult to actually speak to local Germans because I had not learned the colloquialisms that all of the local native Germans grew up with and therefore took for granted.

Important points. Each language has its own grammar.



I’m not sure what’s going on here with David since he seems to understand the English language with a fair degree of competence. He may just have his knickers in a bunch and is looking for a little wiggle room.
Yes, that's what I thought. But every time I offer him wiggle room, he does the same thing and pokes himself in the eye with his own ice pick. I really don't know how to help the poor soul. If you have any ideas, please give it a shot. Maybe talking to a knew guy would help.

Guido Fawkes
10-24-2014, 11:32 PM
Yes, that's what I thought. But every time I offer him wiggle room, he does the same thing and pokes himself in the eye with his own ice pick. I really don't know how to help the poor soul. If you have any ideas, please give it a shot. Maybe talking to a knew guy would help.

Based on what I've read, I doubt it.

David M
10-25-2014, 03:40 AM
Hello Mark

Based on what I've read, I doubt it.
I am pleased you have joined the conversation, even if you do not agree with me. Have you read everything I have presented?
I am only presenting what I find; just as Richard presents what he finds. We all know how language changes and what is grammatically incorrect today becomes accepted and adopted tomorrow. It is accepted when it gets put into the dictionary. This argument has once again spread over several threads. Elsewhere I am waiting for Richard to continue to drill down and resolve this argument by answering my questions.

On this one point of "and yet", I am challenging Richard's claim to have written his formulation of the paradox, "succinctly" and with "precision". Those are Richard's words and I challenge that. Richard cannot see it any other way to what he has written, but to other people, his words can be taken differently. That is the problem to overcome. It might be a very small point, but we are talking about precision and precision deals with the fine detail.

Mark; how would you write the contradictory propositions, or the formulation of the paradox? Your own original words might be helpful.

Richard quotes the use of "and yet" in the definitions of other words explained by Merriam-Webster, but what Richard has failed to do is quote the definition of "and yet" as it is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. That will help a lot if he does it. I have been unable to find a definition of the phrase "and yet" in all the dictionaries I have searched.

It is not unusual to find in a sentence two conjunctions or a double conjunction. There are times when the two conjunctions in sentence are incompatible. In the case of "and yet", we have two competing conjunctions put together. That is unnecessary. I have given links to webpages found through a Google search where this phrase "and yet" has been discussed, or commented upon. It is said that "and yet" is an idiom. Richard might not think so, but his argument is not with me, but the people who say it is. Until this idiom gets into the main dictionary, it must be accepted for what it is. Here is a link to a webpage (http://painintheenglish.com/case/4314) (this link has been corrected) in which the phrase "and yet" is being discussed. See how the commentators refer to the phrase as being "idiomatic" or an "idiom".

Here is one comment from the page linked to:
"and yet" is redundant, grammatically. Each word is a coordinating conjunction, meant to coordinate. Therefore, both are battling to do the one job in the sentence. Only one should be used. The use of these words together as idiomatic in speech is fine, but in writing where we can be impeccably clear, the writer should decide: does he/she wish to emphasize addition (and) or contrast (yet). Then he/she can be most clear about the meaning conveyed in the sentence.

So there you have it. That is the fact of the matter.

I happen to think Richard can write the contradictory propositions defining the paradox more succinctly and more precisely than he has, but his pride will not let him. I have presented the facts. Websites discussing "and yet" are fact and what is stated on the pages are facts. I would not have gone down this road had Richard not tried to claim his formulation is so perfect. It is Richard who is wiggling at the moment in the face of what has been presented. All Richard can do, is give evidence of common usage by famous authors and in Merriam-Webster's comments. That does not mean common usage is totally correct English. I will accept bad grammar and the misuse of words when I understand what is meant, but in the case of Richard, I know how he gets around explaining away the paradox and that is why I am holding him to account on this one point. That aside, this one point is about succinctness and precision, and in that I think Richard has failed.

I have stated all the facts and whether accepted or not, that is all I can do. I let the matter rest. Hopefully, Richard will give us a full explanation to the figurative language used in the verses he quotes from the Bible to explain away the paradox. You know, and I know, what Richard intends to mean by his formulation, so why does Richard not accept that and continue do it? Maybe if you ask him to explain, he will give you an answer.

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2014, 10:12 AM
Hello Mark

I am pleased you have joined the conversation, even if you do not agree with me. Have you read everything I have presented?
I am only presenting what I find; just as Richard presents what he finds. We all know how language changes and what is grammatically incorrect today becomes accepted and adopted tomorrow. It is accepted when it gets put into the dictionary. This argument has once again spread over several threads. Elsewhere I am waiting for Richard to continue to drill down and resolve this argument by answering my questions.

You have never presenting any evidence that there has been any change of any kind in the meaning or grammar of "and yet." You are simply talking out your ass. You are ignoring all the evidence from the greatest authors and authorities of the English language. You have found nothing to contradict what the dictionaries say. You have been refusing to deal with the evidence for two solid years. You are like a madman who fancies himself a mathematician, but can't add 1 + 2! You appear to be a psycho.



On this one point of "and yet", I am challenging Richard's claim to have written his formulation of the paradox, "succinctly" and with "precision". Those are Richard's words and I challenge that. Richard cannot see it any other way to what he has written, but to other people, his words can be taken differently. That is the problem to overcome. It might be a very small point, but we are talking about precision and precision deals with the fine detail.

There you go again! I refuted that false assertion more than once last year, and again yesterday. Here is what I wrote:





I stand corrected if that is the case. Whichever word is dropped, it proves to me that you were not as you claim succinct in what you had written. You were superfluous with words. This argument is not about the actual paradox.

I never claimed it was "succinct." You have repeated this error many times. I corrected it last year on December 28, 2013 - after having previous corrected it a number of times. Here's the post:




Hello Richard
I have been to the link you have given and whilst there, I typed into the search box the words "and yet". The only search term suggested or found is the expression; "so near and yet so far". Is that sentence idiomatic? Here is their definition of the phrase; a rueful comment on someone’s narrow failure to achieve an aim That definition sums up your formulation a treat.

Maybe we should get the author of the website arguing against the use of the two conjunctive words used together, to talk to the author behind the Oxford Dictionaries website. I am not sure the Oxford Dictionaries website is giving unpaid access to the Concise Oxford Dictionary.

This is no longer about what the paradox is or what you intend to say; it is about your stubbornness to continue to think that you have been so succinct and precise that the paradox could not be written in any other way, so as to have no ambiguity or grammatical error whatsoever,

What next?

All the best
David
Good morning David,

I have never said nor implied that my formulation was the most "succinct." Never. Not once. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated that it would be more succinct to drop the "yet" but it is good to include it because it "adds clarity at the expense of an extra word." You have been repeating this falsehood over and over and over again, no matter how my times I expose your error. Indeed, I told you this in my last post, and you are repeating your falsehood yet again! What is wrong with you? Don't you realize what this says about your character?

And neither have I ever said or implied that it "could not be written any other way". On the contrary, I have explicitly and repeatedly told you that it could be written more succinctly by dropping the "yet" and you know this because you complained when I dropped it and complained when I included it. Do you really think I'm going to let you lie to my face? What is wrong with you?


You complain that my posts are repetitious? Well here's the reason: you keep repeating the same errors no matter how many times they have been corrected! I brought this to you attention last year! Even then, you were repeating this error, and now you are repeating it yet again. You are the definition of incorrigible David. You simply refuse to learn. You are by far the most stubbornly stupid person I have ever encountered.


This is what you have been doing for two years on this forum David. You make a false claim. I prove it wrong. You ignore what I wrote and repeat the false claim. You are truly incorrigible. Maybe Mark is correct and you are nothing but an internet troll.



Richard quotes the use of "and yet" in the definitions of other words explained by Merriam-Webster, but what Richard has failed to do is quote the definition of "and yet" as it is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. That will help a lot if he does it. I have been unable to find a definition of the phrase "and yet" in all the dictionaries I have searched.

As I have explained many times a year ago, and again in this thread, the phrase "and yet" is not in the dictionary because it is not an idiom in need of definition. It's meaning can be understood by anyone who knows the meaning of "and" and "yet."

And that doesn't even matter, because the fact that the dictionaries use the phrase in their definitions shows that there is no "ambiguity" in its meaning.

I have explained this many times, and you have never responded David.You are a true psycho David. You are constantly repeating the same errors over and over and over again. And you never respond to the answers I give.



I have given links to webpages found through a Google search where this phrase "and yet" has been discussed, or commented upon. It is said that "and yet" is an idiom. Richard might not think so, but his argument is not with me, but the people who say it is. Until this idiom gets into the main dictionary, it must be accepted for what it is. Here is a link to a webpage (http://painintheenglish.com/case/431) in which the phrase "and yet" is being discussed. See how the commentators refer to the phrase as being "idiomatic" or an "idiom".

Here is one comment from the page linked to:



"and yet" is redundant, grammatically. Each word is a coordinating conjunction, meant to coordinate. Therefore, both are battling to do the one job in the sentence. Only one should be used. The use of these words together as idiomatic in speech is fine, but in writing where we can be impeccably clear, the writer should decide: does he/she wish to emphasize addition (and) or contrast (yet). Then he/she can be most clear about the meaning conveyed in the sentence.


So there you have it. That is the fact of the matter.

Facts? Why would you accept that one random comment as the ultimate authority that trumps all the dictionaries? Why do you not accept the real facts presented in the dictionaries? We all know why. It would force you to admit your error, and you are loathe to do that.

Everything you say is false. You have not given "webpages" (plural). You have only cited a single off-the-cuff comment by any anonymous poster that was contradicted by four other commentators in one little comment stream. And that comment doesn't even support your claim! At worst, a redundancy is a matter of style. It is not a "grammatical error."



I happen to think Richard can write the contradictory propositions defining the paradox more succinctly and more precisely than he has, but his pride will not let him. I have presented the facts.

There you go again, repeating the same ludicrous lie that I have corrected many times over the span of a year! This is why it is vain to converse with you David. You are literally insane. You lie. You irrationally reject all evidence that proves your error. You are incorrigible. And besides all that, you are ARROGANT beyond all measure. You have exalted yourself above all the greatest authors and highest authorities of the English language.

When ignorance is powered by arrogance, we see abominations like David M.



Websites discussing "and yet" are fact and what is stated on the pages are facts.

And when those websites contradict each other who determines which "facts" are true? You have rejected the real facts presented on websites from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, the Concise Oxford English dictionary in favor of one random anonymous comment in a comment stream that was contradicted by four other posters in the same stream.

Your assertions are ludicrous beyond description. Your stubborn stupidity has made you appear to be a moron David. And worse, a lying moron. And worse yet, an arrogant, lying moron.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2014, 10:23 AM
Richard,

I've been reading the banter between you and David for the last couple of days. Have you considered that perhaps David is trolling you? David's posts seem legitimate on the surface, and yet he seems to be unwilling to accept material from some of academia's most trusted scholarly sources. Seriously, who does not use Webster's dictionary? I can't think of a legitimate reason to disallow it as scholarly source material.
Good morning Mark,

Given David's continuous repetition of the same ludicrous lies, his absolute rejection of all authorities on the English language, and his refusal to respond to the evidence or follow a logical train of thought, I think maybe you are correct. He seems be a complex combination of psycho/troll/moron.

A psychtrollmoron!

Richard

Guido Fawkes
10-25-2014, 01:17 PM
Hello Mark

I am pleased you have joined the conversation, even if you do not agree with me. Have you read everything I have presented?

I am only presenting what I find; just as Richard presents what he finds. We all know how language changes and what is grammatically incorrect today becomes accepted and adopted tomorrow. It is accepted when it gets put into the dictionary. This argument has once again spread over several threads. Elsewhere I am waiting for Richard to continue to drill down and resolve this argument by answering my questions.

On this one point of "and yet", I am challenging Richard's claim to have written his formulation of the paradox, "succinctly" and with "precision". Those are Richard's words and I challenge that. Richard cannot see it any other way to what he has written, but to other people, his words can be taken differently. That is the problem to overcome. It might be a very small point, but we are talking about precision and precision deals with the fine detail.

Mark; how would you write the contradictory propositions, or the formulation of the paradox? Your own original words might be helpful.

Richard quotes the use of "and yet" in the definitions of other words explained by Merriam-Webster, but what Richard has failed to do is quote the definition of "and yet" as it is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. That will help a lot if he does it. I have been unable to find a definition of the phrase "and yet" in all the dictionaries I have searched.

It is not unusual to find in a sentence two conjunctions or a double conjunction. There are times when the two conjunctions in sentence are incompatible. In the case of "and yet", we have two competing conjunctions put together. That is unnecessary. I have given links to webpages found through a Google search where this phrase "and yet" has been discussed, or commented upon. It is said that "and yet" is an idiom. Richard might not think so, but his argument is not with me, but the people who say it is. Until this idiom gets into the main dictionary, it must be accepted for what it is. Here is a link to a webpage (http://painintheenglish.com/case/431) [http://painintheenglish.com/case/431] in which the phrase "and yet" is being discussed. See how the commentators refer to the phrase as being "idiomatic" or an "idiom".

Here is one comment from the page linked to:

"and yet" is redundant, grammatically. Each word is a coordinating conjunction, meant to coordinate. Therefore, both are battling to do the one job in the sentence. Only one should be used. The use of these words together as idiomatic in speech is fine, but in writing where we can be impeccably clear, the writer should decide: does he/she wish to emphasize addition (and) or contrast (yet). Then he/she can be most clear about the meaning conveyed in the sentence.

So there you have it. That is the fact of the matter.

I happen to think Richard can write the contradictory propositions defining the paradox more succinctly and more precisely than he has, but his pride will not let him. I have presented the facts. Websites discussing "and yet" are fact and what is stated on the pages are facts. I would not have gone down this road had Richard not tried to claim his formulation is so perfect. It is Richard who is wiggling at the moment in the face of what has been presented. All Richard can do, is give evidence of common usage by famous authors and in Merriam-Webster's comments. That does not mean common usage is totally correct English. I will accept bad grammar and the misuse of words when I understand what is meant, but in the case of Richard, I know how he gets around explaining away the paradox and that is why I am holding him to account on this one point. That aside, this one point is about succinctness and precision, and in that I think Richard has failed.

I have stated all the facts and whether accepted or not, that is all I can do. I let the matter rest. Hopefully, Richard will give us a full explanation to the figurative language used in the verses he quotes from the Bible to explain away the paradox. You know, and I know, what Richard intends to mean by his formulation, so why does Richard not accept that and continue do it? Maybe if you ask him to explain, he will give you an answer.

All the best
David
David,

No, I have not read all of your posts on this topic (nor have I read all of Richard's) -- I have a job which leaves me with limited time to read every post on this forum.

Dictionaries do not define English grammar, they only define single words. To find the meaning of "and yet" one would have to have access to a scholastic book on English grammar and/or writing.

Regarding the use of "and yet", I assume that it is one particular post of Richard's in with which you have an issue. Please include a link to the one post in which Richard made his claim so I can read it for myself.

Always double check your links to ensure that they contain the information that you are referencing. The webpage to which this link [http://painintheenglish.com/case/431] redirects does not contain the quote that you are using. Don't take my word for it, go to the page yourself and look for the quote you included and you will see for yourself that the page does not contain it. It does, however, contain the following quote:

1347

I sincerely hope that you are kidding with me here. You're using a blanket statement which covers all websites, and you seem to be stating categorically that [ALL] websites are "fact" -- a statement which is demonstrably false as attested to by the screen capture seen above. The vast majority of websites/webpages are based solely on the opinion of a person or people in charge of each particular website/webpage, or completely anonymous strangers who post utter garbage in the comments sections, and have no peer review to determine the veracity of the statements being made. I would be much more inclined to trust a website within the .edu domain than any other, because of the implied educational nature of the domain extension. Do you have any URLs to .edu domain sites that discuss the meaning and proper use of "and yet" which support your unique position?

I have easily found many .edu websites which do discuss the proper grammatical use of "and yet":

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm


[*=left]John plays basketball well, yet his favorite sport is badminton.
[*=left]The visitors complained loudly about the heat, yet they continued to play golf every day.

In sentences such as the second one, above, the pronoun subject of the second clause ("they," in this case) is often left out. When that happens, the comma preceding the conjunction might also disappear: "The visitors complained loudly yet continued to play golf every day."
Yet is sometimes combined with other conjunctions, but or and. It would not be unusual to see and yet in sentences like the ones above. This usage is acceptable.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/coordinatingconjunction.htm
Recognize a coordinating conjunction when you see one.

And, but, for, nor, or, so, and yet—these are the seven coordinating conjunctions. To remember all seven, you might want to learn one of these acronyms: FANBOYS,YAFNOBS, or FONYBAS.


https://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement/2/1/43/

http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Transitions.html
This last .edu website that I found lists "and yet" as a transitional phrase used to contrast or show contrast.

The coordinating conjunction "and" is used as a to show comparison.

Both "yet" and "and yet" are coordinating conjunctions used to show contrast.

These were but a few of many .edu websites at which I have looked. None of the .edu websites that I have perused thus far have said that there is anything wrong with using "and yet" as a coordinating conjunction; most state categorically that using "and yet" is, in fact, proper.

I have included scans from a college textbook for writers that I own as part of my personal library. Although the book discusses "and" and "yet", it does not discuss the use of the two words together, nor does it say that there is anything inherently wrong with doing so. This book was published back in 1996 when using "and yet" was apparently neither here nor there with grammarians in the academic community, and so it was not even included as an improper term. As the colloquial use of "and yet" has become a more commonly accepted term over the last (nearly) two decades, scholarly textbooks now include it as an accepted coordinating conjunction in its own right.

The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 1996 by Harper Collins College Publishers
ISBN 0-673-99728-6

14a-2 Pay attention to coordinating words. Different joining words give different signals, so be sure to pick the ones that do what you want them to. For example, and, moreover, also, and the semicolon show that you’re joining ideas of the same kind.

But, yet, however, and nevertheless signal contrast between the two independent clauses of a coordinate sentence.

Example:
The statue’s hair is carved in the style of early archaic sculpture, yet its feet show stylistic traits of late archaic sculpture.

To join ideas…

26c-1 Use commas before the coordinating conjunctions and, but, for, yet, so, or, and nor when those words link independent clauses to form compound sentences.

Clauses are described as independent when they can stand on their own as sentences. Joining two independent clauses with a comma and a coordinating conjunction produces a compound sentence.
Dogs are smarter than cats, and they are more sociable too.
Some people prefer cats, but such persons often need professional help.
Cats seem friendly ant times, yet they cannot be trusted.
Dogs are gregarious and playful, so they often seem less serene than cats.
A comma is especially important when the two clauses separated by the conjunction are lengthy.

To handle semicolons appropriately…

27a-1 Use semicolons to join independent clauses closely related in thought. Notice that conjunctions (such as and, but, so) aren’t needed when clauses are linked by semicolons.
Films focus on action and movement; plays emphasize language and thought.
The history of British cinema is uneven; the best British films come from the period just before and during World War II.
Italian cinema blossomed after World War II; directors like de Sica, Fellini, and Antonioni won critical acclaim.

Leaving out semicolons, however, would create run-on sentences.
If a comma alone is used to join two independent clauses (that is, clauses that could stand as complete sentences), the result is a comma splice.

Remember that while a semicolon alone is strong enough to join two independent sentences, a comma can link them only with the help of coordinating conjunctions—and, but, for, yet, or, nor, and so.

13421343134413451346

Guido Fawkes
10-25-2014, 01:28 PM
Good morning Mark,

Given David's continuous repetition of the same ludicrous lies, his absolute rejection of all authorities on the English language, and his refusal to respond to the evidence or follow a logical train of thought, I think maybe you are correct. He seems be a complex combination of psycho/troll/moron.

A psychtrollmoron!

Richard

:hysterical::rofl::lmbo:

Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2014, 01:39 PM
I sincerely hope that you are kidding with me here. You're using a blanket statement which covers all websites, and you seem to be stating categorically that [ALL] websites are "fact" -- a statement which is demonstrably false as attested to by the screen capture seen above. The vast majority of websites/webpages are based solely on the opinion of a person or people in charge of each particular website/webpage, or completely anonymous strangers who post utter garbage in the comments sections, and have no peer review to determine the veracity of the statements being made. I would be much more inclined to trust a website within the .edu domain than any other, because of the implied educational nature of the domain extension. Do you have any URLs to .edu domain sites that discuss the meaning and proper use of "and yet" which support your unique position?

I have easily found many .edu websites which do discuss the proper grammatical use of "and yet":

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm


[*=left]John plays basketball well, yet his favorite sport is badminton.
[*=left]The visitors complained loudly about the heat, yet they continued to play golf every day.

In sentences such as the second one, above, the pronoun subject of the second clause ("they," in this case) is often left out. When that happens, the comma preceding the conjunction might also disappear: "The visitors complained loudly yet continued to play golf every day."

Yet is sometimes combined with other conjunctions, but or and. It would not be unusual to see and yet in sentences like the ones above. This usage is acceptable.

Hey there Mark,

Excellent post! I really appreciate your effort to help David see the errors of his ways. Unfortunately, it seems very unlikely he will respond intelligently since I presented the same information from the same site to him about a year ago on November 2, 2013 in post #284 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59349#post59349) which I titled "Famous Fools who disagreed with David M." Here it is:


Here are a few of the famous fools who disagreed with David M concerning the use of "and yet":

William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream:
“And yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together nowadays.”

Galileo Galilei:
"And yet it moves." (Reportedly said after the Roman Catholic Church forced him to recant his heliocentric theory)

Lewis Carol - Alice in Wonderland (1865):
"It was much pleasanter at home," thought poor Alice, "when one wasn't always growing larger and smaller, and being ordered around by mice and rabbits. I almost wish I hadn't gone down that rabbit-hole--and yet--and yet--it's rather curious, you know, this sort of life.!"
Kent Bach, Philosopher of Language San Francisco:
Some words clearly have meanings and yet their meanings are not clear.
And of course all this coheres with this comment on the grammar page from the Capital Community College Foundation (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm) site:
Yet is sometimes combined with other conjunctions, but or and. It would not be unusual to see and yet in sentences like the ones above. This usage is acceptable.

And this brings us to one of the most famous people of all history who disagrees with David M - Jesus Christ himself, as quoted in the King James Bible, also known as the "Authorized Version" and broadly considered one of the greatest works in English literature:

JESUS CHRIST in the KJV (Matthew 6:28-29):
And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
JESUS CHRIST in the KJV(John 7:19 ):
Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?
JESUS CHRIST in the KJV (John 8:15-16):
Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. 16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
JESUS CHRIST in the KJV (John 14:9):
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
The King James Bible uses the phrase "and yet" in 35 verses. David M charges the translators of the KJV with folly. He charges the editors of the Merriam Websters Dictionary with folly. He charges the editors of the Oxford Dictionary with folly. He charges professors of linguistics with folly. And for all that, he cannot produce a single authoritative source that supports his assertions. Let the reader be the judge of who is the fool in this dispute.

I think it is fitting to end with this quote from the Apostle Paul in the King James Bible:
1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
There is great irony here in that we are speaking to David not with "other tongues" but rather presenting evidence from the primary authorities in plain English, and yet for all that he will not hear! Amazing. Utterly amazing.

Richard

David has exalted himself above all the greatest authors and authorities of the English language. His only support is one anonymous post in a comment stream that doesn't even prove his point!

:doh:

As for his implicit assertion that everything posted on the web is equally factual and true - what can be said? That is madness, pure and simple.

Again, I really appreciate your help.

Richard

David M
10-25-2014, 02:41 PM
Hello Mark

David,

No, I have not read all of your posts on this topic (nor have I read all of Richard's) -- I have a job which leaves me with limited time to read every post on this forum.

Dictionaries do not define English grammar, they only define single words. To find the meaning of "and yet" one would have to have access to a scholastic book on English grammar and/or writing.

Regarding the use of "and yet", I assume that it is one particular post of Richard's in with which you have an issue. Please include a link to the one post in which Richard made his claim so I can read it for myself.
Always double check your links to ensure that they contain the information that you are referencing. The webpage to which this link [http://painintheenglish.com/case/431] redirects does not contain the quote that you are using. Don't take my word for it, go to the page yourself and look for the quote you included and you will see for yourself that the page does not contain it. It does, however, contain the following quote:

1347The url is missing the last digit. I have corrected the original post. This is the correct link; http://painintheenglish.com/case/4314/


I sincerely hope that you are kidding with me here. You're using a blanket statement which covers all websites, and you seem to be stating categorically that [ALL] websites are "fact" -- a statement which is demonstrably false as attested to by the screen capture seen above. The vast majority of websites/webpages are based solely on the opinion of a person or people in charge of each particular website/webpage, or completely anonymous strangers who post utter garbage in the comments sections, and have no peer review to determine the veracity of the statements being made. I would be much more inclined to trust a website within the .edu domain than any other, because of the implied educational nature of the domain extension. Do you have any URLs to .edu domain sites that discuss the meaning and proper use of "and yet" which support your unique position?Enough independent websites can be found discussing the use of the same phrase and the use of double conjunctives. It is fact that people are discussing this. It is a fact "and yet" is said to be idiomatic.


I have easily found many .edu websites which do discuss the proper grammatical use of "and yet":

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm


[*=left]John plays basketball well, yet his favorite sport is badminton.
[*=left]The visitors complained loudly about the heat, yet they continued to play golf every day.

In sentences such as the second one, above, the pronoun subject of the second clause ("they," in this case) is often left out. When that happens, the comma preceding the conjunction might also disappear: "The visitors complained loudly yet continued to play golf every day."
Yet is sometimes combined with other conjunctions, but or and. It would not be unusual to see and yet in sentences like the ones above. This usage is acceptable.

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/coordinatingconjunction.htm
Recognize a coordinating conjunction when you see one.

And, but, for, nor, or, so, and yet—these are the seven coordinating conjunctions. To remember all seven, you might want to learn one of these acronyms: FANBOYS,YAFNOBS, or FONYBAS.


https://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement/2/1/43/

http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Transitions.html
This last .edu website that I found lists "and yet" as a transitional phrase used to contrast or show contrast.

The coordinating conjunction "and" is used as a to show comparison.

Both "yet" and "and yet" are coordinating conjunctions used to show contrast.

These were but a few of many .edu websites at which I have looked. None of the .edu websites that I have perused thus far have said that there is anything wrong with using "and yet" as a coordinating conjunction; most state categorically that using "and yet" is, in fact, proper.Since the the double conjunction is a common idiom. it is not surprising that it is accepted by many. You will note that in one of the references I have given it said that it was acceptable to use in in speech, but it was not good to use it in the written form, when to use clarity, only one conjuction should be used.
This argument is now about the perfectness of Richard's formulation. I accepted that he dropped the "and", why it has been introduced again, I do not understand why this has been done. I am still waiting for Richard to answer my questions in another thread. When those questions get answered, we might get some progress. As it is, this thread is purely concentrating on the double conjunction "and yet".



I have included scans from a college textbook for writers that I own as part of my personal library. Although the book discusses "and" and "yet", it does not discuss the use of the two words together, nor does it say that there is anything inherently wrong with doing so. This book was published back in 1996 when using "and yet" was apparently neither here nor there with grammarians in the academic community, and so it was not even included as an improper term. As the colloquial use of "and yet" has become a more commonly accepted term over the last (nearly) two decades, scholarly textbooks now include it as an accepted coordinating conjunction in its own right.That is a point I have made. I cannot find the double conjunction defined in the dictionary. I am prepared to accept that it does the same job as "yet" on its own. It just proves my point that the formulation is not worded as succinctly as it could be and the use of "and" is superfluous.


The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 1996 by Harper Collins College Publishers
ISBN 0-673-99728-6

14a-2 Pay attention to coordinating words. Different joining words give different signals, so be sure to pick the ones that do what you want them to. For example, and, moreover, also, and the semicolon show that you’re joining ideas of the same kind.

But, yet, however, and nevertheless signal contrast between the two independent clauses of a coordinate sentence.

Example:
The statue’s hair is carved in the style of early archaic sculpture, yet its feet show stylistic traits of late archaic sculpture.

To join ideas…

26c-1 Use commas before the coordinating conjunctions and, but, for, yet, so, or, and nor when those words link independent clauses to form compound sentences.

Clauses are described as independent when they can stand on their own as sentences. Joining two independent clauses with a comma and a coordinating conjunction produces a compound sentence.
Dogs are smarter than cats, and they are more sociable too.
Some people prefer cats, but such persons often need professional help.
Cats seem friendly ant times, yet they cannot be trusted.
Dogs are gregarious and playful, so they often seem less serene than cats.
A comma is especially important when the two clauses separated by the conjunction are lengthy.

To handle semicolons appropriately…

27a-1 Use semicolons to join independent clauses closely related in thought. Notice that conjunctions (such as and, but, so) aren’t needed when clauses are linked by semicolons.
Films focus on action and movement; plays emphasize language and thought.
The history of British cinema is uneven; the best British films come from the period just before and during World War II.
Italian cinema blossomed after World War II; directors like de Sica, Fellini, and Antonioni won critical acclaim.

Leaving out semicolons, however, would create run-on sentences.
If a comma alone is used to join two independent clauses (that is, clauses that could stand as complete sentences), the result is a comma splice.

Remember that while a semicolon alone is strong enough to join two independent sentences, a comma can link them only with the help of coordinating conjunctions—and, but, for, yet, or, nor, and so.

13421343134413451346Thank you for the notes. They do not give and example of "and yet".
What are the attachments? I think the hyperlinks need sorting out. I get an "invalid link" message when I click on them.

All the best
David

Guido Fawkes
10-25-2014, 03:54 PM
Hello Mark
The url is missing the last digit. I have corrected the original post. This is the correct link; http://painintheenglish.com/case/4314/

Ah, that make more sense.



Enough independent websites can be found discussing the use of the same phrase and the use of double conjunctives. It is fact that people are discussing this. It is a fact "and yet" is said to be idiomatic.
Come on guy, your choice of independent websites has to have some sort of quality control. I will stipulate to your choice of website http://painintheenglish.com/case/4314/ as long as you stick to it, no matter what. That being said this is a new post to that webpage:
1349

http://painintheenglish.com/case/4314/#comment-26123
Since you have already emphatically stated that this webpage contains the truth, you are now obliged to accept this new entry as truth and move the conversation with Richard along. So how are we going to handle this latest post?

I don't see where Richard's having used "and yet" changed the fundamental​ meaning of his statement. Honestly, it seems to me that you lack sufficient ability to articulate proper support for your side of the argument, so instead you're cowering behind trivialities.

If you don't like the way Richard stated it, try rewording it yourself and asking Richard if he accepts the rewording? Then perhaps your debate can move on.

The broken links are scans of pages from the English composition book I have here at my home.
I'll try attaching them here again:
13501351135213531354

Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2014, 04:22 PM
Enough independent websites can be found discussing the use of the same phrase and the use of double conjunctives. It is fact that people are discussing this. It is a fact "and yet" is said to be idiomatic.

Hey there David,

Enough? What are you talking about? You only posted one link that refers (incorrectly) to "and yet" as an "idiom." Where are the other sites? Please post the links.

I have explained your error on this point many times and you have never shown any error in my answer. All you do is repeat your baseless assertions without presenting any evidence or analysis. And the really crazy thing is that the links you do post usually don't support your case at all! For example, here is what you wrote in post #286 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3410-Can-God-s-Angels-in-Heaven-be-trusted&p=59476#post59476) on November 6, 2013:



We can agree to the idiomatic use of words and then we have to realize that idioms might not be understood as you expect them to be understood. Therefore, you must choose to use better words and avoid the ambiguity. Here follows a piece of evidence to say; "idioms" can be ambiguous.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiom?s=t
idiom

noun
1. an expression whose meaning is not predictable from the usual meanings of its constituent elements, as kick the bucket or hang one's head, or from the general grammatical rules of a language, as the table round for the round table, and that is not a constituent of a larger expression of like characteristics.
2. a language, dialect, or style of speaking peculiar to a people.
3. a construction or expression of one language whose parts correspond to elements in another language but whose total structure or meaning is not matched in the same way in the second language.
4. the peculiar character or genius of a language.
5. a distinct style or character, in music, art, etc.: the idiom of Bach.
We are all guilty of using words idiomatically. As #1 says; "meaning is not predictable". The words; "and yet" have not had the predicted meaning you intended. Another reason for changing your formulation.

Look at definition #1, the one that you cited in your comment. It refers specifically to expressions that have a meaning that cannot be predicted from constituent elements, like "kick the bucket." Could anyone understand the meaning of "kick the bucket" from the constituent words? Of course not. The words "kick" and "bucket" have nothing to do with the meaning of the phrase (death).

Now consider the phrase "and yet." Can that phrase ever mean anything other than what is implied by the words "and" and "yet"? Nope. It is not an idiom, and there is no ambiguity of any kind. Your assertions are simply false. You have never written anything to support your assertion that "and yet" is an idiom and that its meaning is "ambiguous."



Since the the double conjunction is a common idiom. it is not surprising that it is accepted by many. You will note that in one of the references I have given it said that it was acceptable to use in in speech, but it was not good to use it in the written form, when to use clarity, only one conjuction should be used.
This argument is now about the perfectness of Richard's formulation. I accepted that he dropped the "and", why it has been introduced again, I do not understand why this has been done. I am still waiting for Richard to answer my questions in another thread. When those questions get answered, we might get some progress. As it is, this thread is purely concentrating on the double conjunction "and yet".

You have never shown how any clarity is lost by using "and yet." The fact that all the greatest authors and authorities of the English language commonly use it, including professors of philosophy in their peer-reviewed articles concerning the meaning of ambiguous words, shows that your claims are entirely contrary to reality.

I reintroduced the "and yet" because you complained when I removed it, asserting that I was being "inconsistent" by conceding to your demands that I remove it! Given the rank insanity of your assertion, I saw no good reason to play along with you on that point. I put it back in to prompt you to deal with the reality that your position is wrong. That's why I started this thread. I wanted to collect the evidence that L67 and I had laboriously collected that proved you would rather deny all the greatest authors and authorities of the English language than admit that I am right. It's not that you don't want to admit you are wrong. You seem to have no problem with that, so long as it does not imply that I am right. Case in point: When I showed that you used the phrase "and yet" 277 times in this forum alone (accounting for 16% of your posts) you chose to falsely accuse yourself of using "bad grammar" rather than admit that I am right!. What a hoot! I wish you could see what crazy fool you are making yourself appear to be.



That is a point I have made. I cannot find the double conjunction defined in the dictionary. I am prepared to accept that it does the same job as "yet" on its own. It just proves my point that the formulation is not worded as succinctly as it could be and the use of "and" is superfluous.

As I have explained 2.3 million times, you cannot find it in the dictionary because the experts who write the dictionaries know it is not an idiom in need of a definition separate from the definitions of "and" and "yet." You have never responded to this point. Why not? It seems to indicate that you know you are wrong but simply are too proud to admit it.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2014, 04:32 PM
I don't see where Richard's having used "and yet" changed the fundamental​ meaning of his statement. Honestly, it seems to me that you lack sufficient ability to articulate proper support for your side of the argument, so instead you're cowering behind trivialities.

Mark,

Are you suggesting that it could change the meaning of the sentence in any way at all? Is there any difference in meaning between these two sentences?

There would be a contradiction if P and Not P.

There would be a contradiction if P and yet Not P.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2014, 04:49 PM
Here is the list of examples intended to show how to use the word "yet" in a sentence (from http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/yet).

The phrase "and yet" occurs in 12 of the 27 examples, accounting for 44% of the examples given.

Yet Sentence Examples


And yet, he was excited - anticipating sharing this wonderful event.13 6
Yet it kept surfacing in arguments.7 3
Some might consider his response silly or controlling, yet to her it was sweet and reassuring.4
Dulce was the oldest of the girls, yet her accent was the most prominent.4 1
Yet he was arrested last week for selling drugs to kids like little Nicholas over there?4 1
And yet, she had honored her promise to go with him to the party the next night.4 1
Alex wanted an answer, yet the only thing she was sure of was doubt.11 9
The voice and words belonged to Josh, and yet he had been dead for more than two years.3 1
For instance, they had been married nearly five years, and yet she was still uncomfortable with intimacy.5 4
And yet, in a way, waiting this long might have been an advantage.1
Yet she instantly recognized the Spanish heritage in his father.1
Of course, Alex didn't have any gray hair yet, and his lips were fuller - more defined.1
They must have been close, and yet, to the best of her memory, Alex had not spoken of Gerald.2 1
Yet before the day was over, it was obvious that wasn't the case.4 3
And yet, didn't clinical words like selective reduction and gestational carrier mask the facts?
And yet, there was something about her that suggested she was in uncharted waters - maybe body language.
And yet, she was reluctant to say anything to church members - even family members.
Yet Señor Medena never left the house.
Yet the next morning he acted normal - even cheerful.
Christmas was only a few days away, and yet it didn't seem like Christmas.1 1
Yet he too was an excellent dancer - or maybe everyone's dancing skills were so much better than hers that it only appeared so to her.
Yet somewhere deep inside she feared that if he was capable of betrayal once, then he might be again.
And yet, the driver was there.
Yet, what about the uneasy feeling she had today?
Yet, it wasn't fair.
Carmen stopped at the corner, uncomfortable with the heat of the exchange, yet unwilling to interrupt.
To her, the idea was ludicrous, and yet, it probably looked that way to Dulce.

Guido Fawkes
10-25-2014, 05:24 PM
Mark,

Are you suggesting that it could change the meaning of the sentence in any way at all? Is there any difference in meaning between these two sentences?

There would be a contradiction if P and Not P.

There would be a contradiction if P and yet Not P.

Richard
Richard,

There is no difference between using “yet” and using “and yet” as a transitional phrase to show contrast between two independent clauses. All of the .edu domain websites support this understanding.

This means that there is also no difference between "P and not P" and "P and yet not P" when either of theses sentence structures are used to show contrast between two independent clauses.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2014, 05:30 PM
Richard,

There is no difference between using “yet” and using “and yet” as a transitional phrase to show contrast between two independent clauses. All of the .edu domain websites support this understanding.

This means that there is also no difference between "P and not P" and "P and yet not P" when either of theses sentence structures are used to show contrast between two independent clauses.
We appear to be in perfect agreement.

I asked because your emphasis upon "fundamental meaning" seemed to suggest a contrast with "meaning" per se.

Thanks for clearing that up!

Guido Fawkes
10-25-2014, 05:48 PM
We appear to be in perfect agreement.

I asked because your emphasis upon "fundamental meaning" seemed to suggest a contrast with "meaning" per se.

Thanks for clearing that up!

For rational thinking people like you and me who accept credible sources, the meaning of the sentence is not changed at all by the addition of the word "and".

However, for those with a more anal-retentive nature, who resort to incredible sources, I was trying to get the point across that such a minor change does not in any way alter the fundamental meaning of the sentence.

I believe that David actually understands completely what it is that you were saying in your original post of which he has 'found' contention, he just can't conceive of an articulate way to present his side of the argument - even to himself, I suppose.

In an earlier post you described his actions as being like, 'watching a train wreck,' and I agree. You want to walk away because you know that there is noting that you can do which will actually be of any help, but morbid curiosity keeps you from actually walking away. It would be funny if it weren't actually so sad.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2014, 05:49 PM
Here is the frequency of occurrences of "and yet" in the most popular English translations of the Bible arranged in descending order. There are 11 translations. The frequencies range from 55 to 24, with an average of 34.7 occurrences per translation.



NAS
55


RSV
48


NRS
44


KJV
35


ASV
35


DRA
31


NIV
29


NET
29


YLT
28


NKJ
24


WEB
24



David M charges ALL the members of ALL the committees involved in ALL these translations with using "bad grammar." :lol:

Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2014, 06:48 PM
Here is an article on the Guardian titled The 100 greatest novels of all time: the list (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2003/oct/12/features.fiction).

I doubt that even one of those authors failed to use the phrase "and yet."

So I started at the top of the list with Don Quixote. I simply Googled the title with the phrase "and yet" and found he used it frequently. The first quote I found was hysterically ironic, given the context of this thread (source (http://www.bartleby.com/14/425.html)):
‘That which you say of this man,’ answered the goatherd, ‘is very like that which in books of chivalry is written of knights-errant, who did all those things which you apply to this man; and yet I believe that either you jest, or else that this gentleman’s head is void of brains.’
I then moved to the next book listed, Pilgrim's Progress, and again the first quote I found was amazingly apt for the discussion at hand (source (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/131/131-h/131-h.htm)):
{4} May I not write in such a style as this?
In such a method, too, and yet not miss
My end--thy good? Why may it not be done?
So I moved on to the third book in the list, The Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, and yet again I found an amazingly apt quote (which also is the first occurrence in his book, source (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/521/521-h/521-h.htm)):
As to going home, shame opposed the best motions that offered to my thoughts, and it immediately occurred to me how I should be laughed at among the neighbours, and should be ashamed to see, not my father and mother only, but even everybody else; from whence I have since often observed, how incongruous and irrational the common temper of mankind is, especially of youth, to that reason which ought to guide them in such cases—viz. that they are not ashamed to sin, and yet are ashamed to repent; not ashamed of the action for which they ought justly to be esteemed fools, but are ashamed of the returning, which only can make them be esteemed wise men.
The fourth book is Gulliver's Travels. It was not hard to find an apt quote (source (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/829/829-h/829-h.htm)):
He said “he wondered at one thing very much, which was, to hear me speak so loud;” asking me “whether the king or queen of that country were thick of hearing?” I told him, “it was what I had been used to for above two years past, and that I admired as much at the voices of him and his men, who seemed to me only to whisper, and yet I could hear them well enough.
The fifth book listed is The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling. Its benighted author used the phrase "and yet" eighty times in this book! For example (source (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6593/6593-h/6593-h.htm)):
There were not, perhaps, many more unhappy persons than poor Partridge. He had lost the best part of his income by the evidence of his wife, and yet was daily upbraided by her for having, among other things, been the occasion of depriving her of that benefit; but such was his fortune, and he was obliged to submit to it.
The sixth book, Clarissa, is one of the longest books in the English language and uses the phrase "and yet" hundreds of times. For example (source (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9296/9296-h/9296-h.htm)):
For a girl to lay so much stress upon going to church, and yet resolve to defy her parents, in an article of the greatest consequence to them, and to the whole family, is an absurdity.
I could go on, but there is no need. I doubt there is even one noted English book that fails to contain the phrase "and yet" (except of course Gadsby, the 50,000 word novel famous for not including the letter "E").

And yet for all that, David M will not hear. Reminds me of this verse from the "Good Book" -

1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

Richard