The 49er Sports SportsHoopla English, Grammar, Pronunciation, and Usage Thread

[TobyTyler]

Kurt Vonnegut disagrees:

Nice quote but they do provide a pause in your writing in order to let you complete a thought without moving on to a different sentence. I find them very useful. No less of an authority on the language than my father agrees.

 

[TobyTyler]

See, this is where you're wrong. Infer has both the meaning you have used above, and one that is a synonym for imply.

I could definitely say you are making an inference that Canadians are dumb. What do you think the root word for inference is?

Also, your argument above seems to be more that I cannot imply something from your words, rather than that you cannot infer something with your words.

I disagree with your second sentence. I'm not inferring anyhting, I'm implying it. In your third, I am saying that you cannot imply something from my words and that I cannot infer something with my words. Bottom line is you cannot infer anything with spoken words you draw inference from hearing spoken words.

 

[imac_21]

1. You are using observations about a person to decide they are unintelligent.
2. You are hinting that someone is unintelligent.

So, first of all, I am not the speaker in either example. In example 2, I am not hinting that some is unintelligent, I am asking if someone is hinting that I am unintelligent.

So if I ask if "[you are] inferring that I'm stupid," I am using observations about a person to decide if they are unintelligent? Isn't the person in this example me?

So, I am using observations about you to decide if I am intelligent.

In the other example, in which I am asking if "[you are] implying that I am stupid," I am using hints given by someone that I am unintelligent. How do I take these hints, if not by observation? Is listening not an observation?

I can infer from what you can imply as the speaker. That does not mean that as the speaker you cannot infer, or make an inference. However, because infer is generally used as the partner, so to speak, of imply it is rarely used in its synonym form. That does not make using it as a synonym for imply is incorrect.

However, imply cannot necessarily be used as a synonym for infer. This is one of those wonderful situations where

A equals B, but B does not necessarily equal A.

 

[imac_21]

Here's the difference. In # 1 I would be asking you if you think I'm stupid because of something I said. In #2 You are asking if I'm saying that you are stupid.

Under one definition of infer. However, under another definition, both 1 and 2 are the same.

 

[imac_21]

Nice quote but they do provide a pause in your writing in order to let you complete a thought without moving on to a different sentence. I find them very useful. No less of an authority on the language than my father agrees.

Who is your father? What makes him an authority? I think Kurt Vonnegut may be more of an authority.

 

[TobyTyler]

Under one definition of infer. However, under another definition, both 1 and 2 are the same.

Well, I told you it was a pet peeve of mine.

 

[TobyTyler]

Who is your father? What makes him an authority? I think Kurt Vonnegut may be more of an authority.

Professor Emeritus of Linguistics; University of California at Berkeley. God rest his soul.

 

[JDM]

So, first of all, I am not the speaker in either example. In example 2, I am not hinting that some is unintelligent, I am asking if someone is hinting that I am unintelligent.

I was answering from the perspective that I said them to you, and stand by my answer in that context

So if I ask if "[you are] inferring that I'm stupid," I am using observations about a person to decide if they are unintelligent? Isn't the person in this example me?

So, I am using observations about you to decide if I am intelligent.

In the other example, in which I am asking if "[you are] implying that I am stupid," I am using hints given by someone that I am unintelligent. How do I take these hints, if not by observation? Is listening not an observation?

I can infer from what you can imply as the speaker. That does not mean that as the speaker you cannot infer, or make an inference. However, because infer is generally used as the partner, so to speak, of imply it is rarely used in its synonym form. That does not make using it as a synonym for imply is incorrect.

However, imply cannot necessarily be used as a synonym for infer. This is one of those wonderful situations where

A equals B, but B does not necessarily equal A.

No. I explained the definitions you quoted, and you are wrong. I'm not going to go back and forth with no new evidence, but if someone says inferred to me when they mean implied I'm more likely to punch them than ever take anything they say seriously ever again.

 

[imac_21]

Professor Emeritus of Linguistics; University of California at Berkeley. God rest his soul.

And you're unfamiliar with the two definitions of infer?

 

[TobyTyler]

I was answering from the perspective that I said them to you, and stand by my answer in that context




No. I explained the definitions you quoted, and you are wrong. I'm not going to go back and forth with no new evidence, but if someone says inferred to me when they mean implied I'm more likely to punch them than ever take anything they say seriously ever again.

That's the way I feel about "irregardless" and "I could care less". I hate those two things.

 

[TobyTyler]

And you're unfamiliar with the two definitions of infer?

In my opinion there is only one and you can infer from my recent post where I got that information.

 

[TobyTyler]

I enjoyed the repartee, IMAC. I "gotta" go to bed.

 

[imac_21]

I was answering from the perspective that I said them to you, and stand by my answer in that context




No. I explained the definitions you quoted, and you are wrong. I'm not going to go back and forth with no new evidence, but if someone says inferred to me when they mean implied I'm more likely to punch them than ever take anything they say seriously ever again.

With no new evidence? The evidence you have brought to the conversation is your interpretation. The evidence I have brought to the table is Merriam Webster.

But here's some new evidence.

Infer | Define Infer at Dictionary.com

Dictionary.com's definition of infer. I would like to call your attention to the 4th definition:

imply: to hint; imply; suggest.

Yeah, dictionary.com neither implies, nor infers, that they are synonyms. It straight up says that an acceptable definition of "infer" is "imply."

If you scroll down a bit on that page you will come across the following

The use of infer to mean imply is becoming more and more common in both speech and writing.

So there's some new evidence to the discussion. Do you have sources to contradict any of the evidence I have presented?

 

[imac_21]

I enjoyed the repartee, IMAC. I "gotta" go to bed.

Alright, have a good night. But I think we both know better than to assume this discussion won't be picked up. That's the beauty of the internet. It's here for us tomorrow.

 

[JDM]

That's the way I feel about "irregardless" and "I could care less". I hate those two things.

Those annoy me but I could be talking to a straight a student who by all other accounts is brilliant and I'd be perfectly happy considering them an idiot from then on. I hate when people use words they don't understand.

 

[I_am_1z]

This thread stinks of pretentiousness. It annoys me that people get off to knowing a language better than someone else. English from 1000 years ago is unintelligible from modern English because it's constantly changing. People who have constraints for what is prestige, have underlying reasons for it such as not wanting to be included with a certain class of people. Sure, things like double negatives have some legitimacy since they tend to slow down what's being communicated but many of these mistakes don't even cause confusion, yet cause much anger.

 

[MHSL82]

I'm inviting Crimson, Toby Tyler, and IMAC to start it off and get us going. Just to be controversial -- there are many things in the english language that are technically correct that sound terrible. The prohibition on ending a sentence with a preposition is one of those mythical rules that is a perfect example.

You wasted a perfect opportunity to purposely mess it up. Your last sentence should have been, "The prohibition on ending a sentence with a preposition is one of those in which the mythical rules is a perfect example of."

Just kidding.

 

[MHSL82]

When in doubt, always use a semi colon; It is a wonderful tool because nobody knows how or when they should be used; so, if they see one in your writing they assume you must know what you are doing.

FIFY.

 

[MHSL82]

With no new evidence? The evidence you have brought to the conversation is your interpretation. The evidence I have brought to the table is Merriam Webster.

But here's some new evidence.

Infer | Define Infer at Dictionary.com

Dictionary.com's definition of infer. I would like to call your attention to the 4th definition:

imply: to hint; imply; suggest.

Yeah, dictionary.com neither implies, nor infers, that they are synonyms. It straight up says that an acceptable definition of "infer" is "imply."

If you scroll down a bit on that page you will come across the following



So there's some new evidence to the discussion. Do you have sources to contradict any of the evidence I have presented?

Just a question: does Meriam-Webster claim to be an evolving encyclopedia-like authority on the English language, evidenced by their gradual inclusion of new words, developed through slang and consistent misuse or differing use in today's society? Or is it an authority on what is correct for reference to those who want to know the classic, correct usage? If the former, I can infer that the new definition could have been originally wrong but widely accepted. If the latter, that implies that it has been an acceptable definition all along.

I mean, from dictionary.com (which is not Merriam-Webster, obviously), I have inferred that if society more and more incorrectly used the word "spell" as "pronounce" that it would become an acceptable definition, as opposed to a classic example of incorrect English.

 

[yossarian]

This thread stinks of pretentiousness. It annoys me that people get off to knowing a language better than someone else. English from 1000 years ago is unintelligible from modern English because it's constantly changing. People who have constraints for what is prestige, have underlying reasons for it such as not wanting to be included with a certain class of people. Sure, things like double negatives have some legitimacy since they tend to slow down what's being communicated but many of these mistakes don't even cause confusion, yet cause much anger.

I started this thread because I was bored and knew that I could amuse myself for an hour or so reading the posts, the thread really wasn't meant for anyone to take it seriously, and I think iMac and Toby really enjoyed themselves and weren't totally serious, so don't be such a negative Nate.