Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    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/s...guity/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.

    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.

    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, Strong's Number 1803 εξ (ex, pronounced "hex" - like a witches hex - 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):

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    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/show...6640#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:
    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. 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 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. 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:

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88

    Error in construction...

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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”.
    Quote Originally Posted by grammarist.com
    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.
    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    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”.
    Quote Originally Posted by grammarist.com
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    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.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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.
    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Mark
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    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 (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
    Last edited by David M; 10-25-2014 at 02:03 PM. Reason: corrupted link corrected

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough; View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David M
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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 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."

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148

    Is David M a troll?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    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
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88

    Link to source of contention...

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    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] 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:

    Name:  Capture.PNG
Views: 25
Size:  68.7 KB

    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

    • John plays basketball well, yet his favorite sport is badminton.
    • 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/coor...onjunction.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.

    Attachment 1342Attachment 1343Attachment 1344Attachment 1345Attachment 1346
    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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
    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post

    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

    • John plays basketball well, yet his favorite sport is badminton.
    • 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 which I titled "Famous Fools who disagreed with David M." Here it is:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    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 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!



    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
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •