You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
XP: Written Word/English Language&Reading Material
- Thread starter Peter Creasey
- Start date
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Recognizing this is a losing battle, I am a holdout for using an invented pronoun such as ze/zir. I have never read a sentence with a singular they that I did not find ambiguous.
Interestingly, when I was teaching, I told the story of the loss of the singular second person in English to a different end. (by the way the author denatures the history of the change: it occurred after the Restoration as a political reaction to the politically generalized use of thou among Puritan and dissenter anti-monarchists and regicides; as if, after the French Restoration, the French had extirpated tu and toi, which fortunately they did not). At any rate, my point is that usage will win over prescription, prescribe though I may, but the victory is not always a fortunate one. English is a poorer language, as anyone who tries to translate from other Western European languages and generally has to ignore the registers in meaning of characters who switch from vous to tu knows, for having undergone this change. I think it would be a richer language for the addition of a pronoun and a poorer one for the ambiguation the use of a non-binary they will cause. But, as the Restoration proves, grammar will never resist social necessity.
Interestingly, when I was teaching, I told the story of the loss of the singular second person in English to a different end. (by the way the author denatures the history of the change: it occurred after the Restoration as a political reaction to the politically generalized use of thou among Puritan and dissenter anti-monarchists and regicides; as if, after the French Restoration, the French had extirpated tu and toi, which fortunately they did not). At any rate, my point is that usage will win over prescription, prescribe though I may, but the victory is not always a fortunate one. English is a poorer language, as anyone who tries to translate from other Western European languages and generally has to ignore the registers in meaning of characters who switch from vous to tu knows, for having undergone this change. I think it would be a richer language for the addition of a pronoun and a poorer one for the ambiguation the use of a non-binary they will cause. But, as the Restoration proves, grammar will never resist social necessity.
Cole Kendall
Cole Kendall
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Recognizing this is a losing battle, I am a holdout for using an invented pronoun such as ze/zir. I have never read a sentence with a singular they that I did not find ambiguous.
Interestingly, when I was teaching, I told the story of the loss of the singular second person in English to a different end. (by the way the author denatures the history of the change: it occurred after the Restoration as a political reaction to the politically generalized use of thou among Puritan and dissenter anti-monarchists and regicides; as if, after the French Restoration, the French had extirpated tu and toi, which fortunately they did not). At any rate, my point is that usage will win over prescription, prescribe though I may, but the victory is not always a fortunate one. English is a poorer language, as anyone who tries to translate from other Western European languages and generally has to ignore the registers in meaning of characters who switch from vous to tu knows, for having undergone this change. I think it would be a richer language for the addition of a pronoun and a poorer one for the ambiguation the use of a non-binary they will cause. But, as the Restoration proves, grammar will never resist social necessity.
Curiously in Italian there are/were three (or four) variants, tu/voi/Lei. As far as I am aware in the 1800s voi was used like vous in French (e.g., in the da Ponte operas). At some point "your majesty/excellency" became "Lei" (third person feminine or elle in French. but always capital L unlike the third person female) but then Mussolini found it presumptuous and went back to voi which is still used in some places and expressions but where I go in the North it is always Lei. And of course there is occasional usage of the plural of Lei (Loro = elles or ils) in some circumstances.
Tristan Welles
Tristan Welles
originally posted by Oswaldo Costa:
Appealing article by a Yale writing professor on the use of they for non-binaries and to replace "he or she."
Tu l'as voulu.
Peter Creasey
Peter Creasey
An acronym (as the term is commonly used) is a term that is formed from the initial letters of some longer name and is pronounced differently than the expanded form. Examples of acronyms as the term is commonly used:
FBI, which stands for Federal Bureau of Investigation, but is pronounced ef-bee-I
NATO, which stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but is pronounced NAY-toe
IUPAC, which stands for International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, but is pronounced I-U-pak
An abbreviation is written differently from the expanded form but is pronounced the same. Examples:
Mr., which stands for mister and is pronounced mister
ft., which stands for feet and is pronounced feet
etc., which stands for et cetera and is pronounced et cetera
Whether the form is pronounced as a “word” or as letter names or as some combination of the two is a red herring. The key difference is whether the abbreviated form is pronounced differently from the expanded form.
Difference between an acronym and abbreviation
. . . . . Pete
Peter Creasey
Peter Creasey
After seeing this sentence used...
"I might not should have done that."
It's descriptive, but I wondered how a grammarian might view it...or parse it.
. . . . . Pete
"I might not should have done that."
It's descriptive, but I wondered how a grammarian might view it...or parse it.
. . . . . Pete
Peter Creasey
Peter Creasey
If there is a problem with referring to the "inoculation" of the Covid vaccines, then the problem is rampant on the Internet...and most everywhere else as well.
. . . . . . Pete
. . . . . . Pete
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
And yet there is a difference and a very significant one in terms of the safety of the process. You could look it up, as the say. Fortunately, the internet to the contrary notwithstanding, inoculations are a thing of the past.
I am amending this to note that this morning, I read the current vaccine referred to as an inoculation by both the NY Times and the Washington Post. I am horrified. Normally I am resigned to usage coarsening the language. This loss of distinction, however, occludes important scientific progress. If you don't know the difference between inoculation and vaccination, it follows that you don't know the dangers of inoculation and why Edward Jenner's invention of the smallpox vaccine was a monumental achievement in immunology. Indeed, the opening of the other thread marveling--properly--at the scientific advance of the two Covid vaccines probably becomes invisible to you. And yet the advance is revolutionary enough--as much an advance as the smallpox vaccine was over inoculation--that one could argue that it should get a term of its own rather than being referred to with a term for a primitive and life-threatening early medical practice.
I am amending this to note that this morning, I read the current vaccine referred to as an inoculation by both the NY Times and the Washington Post. I am horrified. Normally I am resigned to usage coarsening the language. This loss of distinction, however, occludes important scientific progress. If you don't know the difference between inoculation and vaccination, it follows that you don't know the dangers of inoculation and why Edward Jenner's invention of the smallpox vaccine was a monumental achievement in immunology. Indeed, the opening of the other thread marveling--properly--at the scientific advance of the two Covid vaccines probably becomes invisible to you. And yet the advance is revolutionary enough--as much an advance as the smallpox vaccine was over inoculation--that one could argue that it should get a term of its own rather than being referred to with a term for a primitive and life-threatening early medical practice.
Cole Kendall
Cole Kendall
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
And yet there is a difference and a very significant one in terms of the safety of the process. You could look it up, as the say. Fortunately, the internet to the contrary notwithstanding, inoculations are a thing of the past.
I am amending this to note that this morning, I read the current vaccine referred to as an inoculation by both the NY Times and the Washington Post. I am horrified. Normally I am resigned to usage coarsening the language. This loss of distinction, however, occludes important scientific progress. If you don't know the difference between inoculation and vaccination, it follows that you don't know the dangers of inoculation and why Edward Jenner's invention of the smallpox vaccine was a monumental achievement in immunology. Indeed, the opening of the other thread marveling--properly--at the scientific advance of the two Covid vaccines probably becomes invisible to you. And yet the advance is revolutionary enough--as much an advance as the smallpox vaccine was over inoculation--that one could argue that it should get a term of its own rather than being referred to with a term for a primitive and life-threatening early medical practice.
Edward Jenner is well known around the world for his innovative contribution to immunization and the ultimate eradication of smallpox (2). Jenner's work is widely regarded as the foundation of immunology—despite the fact that he was neither the first to suggest that infection with cowpox conferred specific immunity to smallpox nor the first to attempt cowpox inoculation for this purpose.
Loading…
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
It’s unfortunate that inoculation has come to mean (through widespread usage over a long time, Jonathan) the introduction of a vaccine into the body, but is that meaning really debatable now?
It’s most unfortunate if those potentially vaccinated are scared off by thinking they are being injected with a diluted form of the disease when vaccinated. Unfortunately scientists are just as guilty as media in terms of precision of communication. Scientists in my experience get used to using short cuts in language and do it unconsciously (and sloppily) because they know their technical audience understands what they are really saying. But this sloppiness does not translate well to a wider audience. I don’t know but suspect that scientists and medical doctors originated the sloppiness of using inoculation to refer to the vaccination process.
It’s most unfortunate if those potentially vaccinated are scared off by thinking they are being injected with a diluted form of the disease when vaccinated. Unfortunately scientists are just as guilty as media in terms of precision of communication. Scientists in my experience get used to using short cuts in language and do it unconsciously (and sloppily) because they know their technical audience understands what they are really saying. But this sloppiness does not translate well to a wider audience. I don’t know but suspect that scientists and medical doctors originated the sloppiness of using inoculation to refer to the vaccination process.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Et tu Brute? If you read further into the article, you will find that Jenner coined the term vaccination for his new process and the distinction between grafting live pathogens of a disease to induce a mild form of it and other antibodies to achieve the same effect has been general since.originally posted by Cole Kendall:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
And yet there is a difference and a very significant one in terms of the safety of the process. You could look it up, as the say. Fortunately, the internet to the contrary notwithstanding, inoculations are a thing of the past.
I am amending this to note that this morning, I read the current vaccine referred to as an inoculation by both the NY Times and the Washington Post. I am horrified. Normally I am resigned to usage coarsening the language. This loss of distinction, however, occludes important scientific progress. If you don't know the difference between inoculation and vaccination, it follows that you don't know the dangers of inoculation and why Edward Jenner's invention of the smallpox vaccine was a monumental achievement in immunology. Indeed, the opening of the other thread marveling--properly--at the scientific advance of the two Covid vaccines probably becomes invisible to you. And yet the advance is revolutionary enough--as much an advance as the smallpox vaccine was over inoculation--that one could argue that it should get a term of its own rather than being referred to with a term for a primitive and life-threatening early medical practice.
Edward Jenner is well known around the world for his innovative contribution to immunization and the ultimate eradication of smallpox (2). Jenner's work is widely regarded as the foundation of immunology—despite the fact that he was neither the first to suggest that infection with cowpox conferred specific immunity to smallpox nor the first to attempt cowpox inoculation for this purpose.
Loading…
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Cole Kendall
Cole Kendall
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Et tu Brute? If you read further into the article, you will find that Jener coined the term vaccination for his new process and the distinction between grafting live pathogens of a disease to induce a mild form of it and other antibodies to achieve the same effect has been general since.originally posted by Cole Kendall:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
And yet there is a difference and a very significant one in terms of the safety of the process. You could look it up, as the say. Fortunately, the internet to the contrary notwithstanding, inoculations are a thing of the past.
I am amending this to note that this morning, I read the current vaccine referred to as an inoculation by both the NY Times and the Washington Post. I am horrified. Normally I am resigned to usage coarsening the language. This loss of distinction, however, occludes important scientific progress. If you don't know the difference between inoculation and vaccination, it follows that you don't know the dangers of inoculation and why Edward Jenner's invention of the smallpox vaccine was a monumental achievement in immunology. Indeed, the opening of the other thread marveling--properly--at the scientific advance of the two Covid vaccines probably becomes invisible to you. And yet the advance is revolutionary enough--as much an advance as the smallpox vaccine was over inoculation--that one could argue that it should get a term of its own rather than being referred to with a term for a primitive and life-threatening early medical practice.
Edward Jenner is well known around the world for his innovative contribution to immunization and the ultimate eradication of smallpox (2). Jenner's work is widely regarded as the foundation of immunology—despite the fact that he was neither the first to suggest that infection with cowpox conferred specific immunity to smallpox nor the first to attempt cowpox inoculation for this purpose.
Loading…
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I was referring to the claim of invention.
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
And yet there is a difference and a very significant one in terms of the safety of the process. You could look it up, as the say. Fortunately, the internet to the contrary notwithstanding, inoculations are a thing of the past.
I am amending this to note that this morning, I read the current vaccine referred to as an inoculation by both the NY Times and the Washington Post. I am horrified. Normally I am resigned to usage coarsening the language. This loss of distinction, however, occludes important scientific progress. If you don't know the difference between inoculation and vaccination, it follows that you don't know the dangers of inoculation and why Edward Jenner's invention of the smallpox vaccine was a monumental achievement in immunology. Indeed, the opening of the other thread marveling--properly--at the scientific advance of the two Covid vaccines probably becomes invisible to you. And yet the advance is revolutionary enough--as much an advance as the smallpox vaccine was over inoculation--that one could argue that it should get a term of its own rather than being referred to with a term for a primitive and life-threatening early medical practice.
If it's any consolation, my wife Marcia, who is a doctor, says that, in her experience, medical professionals don't use the word inoculation to mean vaccination. To doctors, inoculation refers to the (obsolete) practice of scraping the live virus off a sore and rubbing it on exposed skin.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Not just to doctors, one hopes. That is the distinction.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Not just to doctors, one hopes. That is the distinction.
We agree, but that does not reflect current usage. So in a sense, Pete is right.
Though I understand that to many of us the conflation of the terms is dead wrong, some doctors and headline writers at the NYT and WaPo use the terms interchangeably.
I quote from the CDC's website:
Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.
Peter Creasey
Peter Creasey
Another virus terminology is in play...
. . . . . Pete
Add “antigenic drift” to your 2020 bingo card. RNA viruses quickly evolve. Some like influenza are able to accept mutations to their surface proteins allowing them to partially escape human immunity, i.e., antigenic drift.
Expect modest reductions in vaccine efficacy due to antigenic drift. Will likely need a process to update the spike variant used in the vaccine to best match circulating viruses. Credit: Trevor Bedford.
. . . . . Pete
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
originally posted by mark e:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Not just to doctors, one hopes. That is the distinction.
We agree, but that does not reflect current usage. So in a sense, Pete is right.
Though I understand that to many of us the conflation of the terms is dead wrong, some doctors and headline writers at the NYT and WaPo use the terms interchangeably.
I quote from the CDC's website:
Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.
It seems to me that the CDC is not condoning the usage, just saying that it happens "often" (much like varietal "is often used interchangeably with" variety).
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Mark is right about the usage drift. I was bemoaning it. I think it is really worth fighting against, unlike others my the hobby horses I ride for personal amusement.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Peter Creasey:
Another virus terminology is in play...
Add “antigenic drift” to your 2020 bingo card. RNA viruses quickly evolve. Some like influenza are able to accept mutations to their surface proteins allowing them to partially escape human immunity, i.e., antigenic drift.
Expect modest reductions in vaccine efficacy due to antigenic drift. Will likely need a process to update the spike variant used in the vaccine to best match circulating viruses. Credit: Trevor Bedford.
. . . . . Pete
Pete,
Are you auditioning to be board anti-vaxxer? It's not a role I would envy you.
If you are going to look forward to mutations, by the way, here's a more hopeful one. Viruses typically mutate to transmit more quickly, as what is going on in the UK, and to be less deadly, as has not happened yet. Both mutations are survival benefits for viruses (the longer you don't kill your host, the longer the time you have to jump to others). Scientists speculate that this is what happened to the Spanish Flu.