|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Campagnolo components and the Tour...
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:10:14 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
In article , Jasper Janssen wrote: Well, yes, but only when the members were in a position to be in close physical proximity. I believe that applies to Ellery, certainly. Now, if I were to rewrite `close physical proximity' for you, _that_ would be pedantry. Why exactly, and to what, would you rewrite it? Jasper |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Campagnolo components and the Tour...
In article ,
Jasper Janssen wrote: On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:10:14 GMT, Michael Press wrote: In article , Jasper Janssen wrote: Well, yes, but only when the members were in a position to be in close physical proximity. I believe that applies to Ellery, certainly. Now, if I were to rewrite `close physical proximity' for you, _that_ would be pedantry. Why exactly, and to what, would you rewrite it? Why? Matters of style are not for me to comment upon. Were I in a relationship as a pedant (obsolete usage meaning a schoolmaster) I would say that `proximity' means nearness in space and time; and that it is enough to say `Well, yes, but only when the members were in a position to be in proximity. I believe that applies to Ellery, certainly.' or `Well, yes, but only when the members were in proximity. I believe that applies to Ellery, certainly.' or even `Well, yes, but only when the members were proximate. I believe that applies to Ellery, certainly.' -- Michael Press |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Campagnolo components and the Tour...
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 05:04:54 GMT, Michael Press wrote:
In article , Jasper Janssen wrote: On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:10:14 GMT, Michael Press wrote: In article , Jasper Janssen wrote: Well, yes, but only when the members were in a position to be in close physical proximity. I believe that applies to Ellery, certainly. Now, if I were to rewrite `close physical proximity' for you, _that_ would be pedantry. Why exactly, and to what, would you rewrite it? Why? Matters of style are not for me to comment upon. Were I in a relationship as a pedant (obsolete usage meaning a schoolmaster) I would say that `proximity' means nearness in space and time; and that it is enough to say So you feel that both close and physical are unnecessary modifiers? That wouldn't be so much pedantic as just plain wrong. Proximity says only 'nearness' and does *not* specify whether in space or time, let alone both. That would be because it's a direct import into english from Latin proximitas, proximitatis, which my Latin dictionary informs me derives from the superior form of 'prope', close (therefore, from closest), but even in Roman times had morphed into meaning, well, proximity, ie, nearness. Nowadays, it is possible to use 'proximity' to make a statement about relative positions within networks -- whether those be telephone, telegraph, mail, internet, or family relations -- and therefore specifying *physical* proximity than any of the others is far from superfluous. In a similar way, 'proximity' and its ancestors have for millennia been used in sentences that indicate just *how* close someone or something (unlike, say, proximate or proximal), therefore specifying 'close' is not excessive. Try to outpedant me, will you? Jasper |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Campagnolo components and the Tour...
In article ,
Jasper Janssen wrote: [...] Try to outpedant me, will you? Where do you get that? It was in a different thread that you said I was pedantic, a characterization that I did not and do not now accept. Nowhere until now have you intimated that you mean to hold the pedantic high ground; ground that I have never contested. -- Michael Press |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|