English Answering A Question English Usage

Home | Classroom | Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Words | Phrases | Countries | Languages

Phrasebase Archive

Brucey Wednesday 01st of June 2005 01:49:25 AM
Answering a question - I recently received this question in my message box and have taken the liberty of reprinting it, with a reply, here.

[quote]Hi My name is Aey. I'm from Bangkok, Thailand.
I would like to ask question as below..

Is is wrong to say
'How can I prolong my relationship'

Is it really severe mistake to use 'prolong' in this sentence? Please explain.

Thank you for your help.[/quote]

The reply:

Hello, Aey. It's a pleasure to meet you.

To answer your question, no, it is not a mistake, if it's what you mean to say. To prolong is to lengthen. In a relationship, to prolong it is to make it long-lasting, durable. Another way of phrasing it is, "How can i make my relationship last a long time?", or, "How can i make my relationship endure?"

The question may be, "How can i strenthen my relationship?" Usually, a strong relationship is a lasting one. Of course, sometimes people may have weak but lasting relationships, such as with someone who performs a service for you. My mail carrier and i don't have a strong or deep relationship, but because we are polite, honest and respectful toward one another, we have had a working relationship for twelve years. On the other hand, i gave my heart in friendship to a brilliant young colleague and sacrificed much, to the point of harming myself, to build both the working relationship and the friendship. I think that was true of her as well. After one foolish mistake on my part, both relationships evaporated after only a few months. The question i failed to ask was, "How can i prolong our relationship?"

The only way you might improve your sentence would be to change "my" to "our" or to add "with..." and supply a name, because a relationship needs at least two parties.

Keep up the good work. Feel free to ask any more questions.

[To all of you, dear readers, i welcome your English questions. You are welcome to use this thread to ask any questions on English usage. You may also private message me, or email me at bruceytom@yahoo.com

If you ask me to keep our communication private, of course i will. If it is simply a language question and it can serve to illustrate a point, i may post it publicly, unless you tell me to do othrwise.

In the words of the old-time American television hosts, "Keep those cards and letters coming, folks"]

CharonPlu Wednesday 01st of June 2005 06:53:29 AM
- To me, the use of 'prolong' implies that the user is trying to lengthen an event by 'dragging it out' or by doing so 'forcefully' rather than doing it for 'enjoyment' (if you follow...).

Thus, it may be better to use the word 'extend' or 'lengthen' instead of 'prolong.' 'Prolong' can still be used, but it's not as [i]positive[/i] as, say, 'extend.'

You could also ask: "How can I make my relationship last longer?"

Hope this is of any help,
~Charon

Thursday 02nd of June 2005 01:54:39 PM
- [quote][i]Originally posted by CharonPlu[/i]

To me, the use of 'prolong' implies that the user is trying to lengthen an event by 'dragging it out' or by doing so 'forcefully' rather than doing it for 'enjoyment' (if you follow...).

Thus, it may be better to use the word 'extend' or 'lengthen' instead of 'prolong.' 'Prolong' can still be used, but it's not as [i]positive[/i] as, say, 'extend.'

You could also ask: "How can I make my relationship last longer?"

Hope this is of any help,
~Charon[/quote]

Thank you your considered opinion. I agree that your alternative would work well.

I will make a very respectful suggestion, based on experience. While it's interesting to give one's personal connotation of a word, it is usually not an effective teaching tool. A report starting, "To me...implies" lacks authority. At best, it helps the reader to better communicate with this one person. What a word means to me is not of great importance. What it really means is significant.

The safest way to learn the real connotation (accepted meaning) is to use a good dictionary that gives, besides the basic definition, usage suggestions.

For American English, the best volume i've found is "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language". It says of "prolong":
1. To lengthen in duration, protract. 2. To lengthen in extent.
Synonyms: prolong, protract, extend. These verbs mean to lengthen in time or space. Prolong implies an increase in duration (time) beyond normal limits. Protract adds to prolong the idea of lengthening indefinitely or unnecessarily. Extend can refer to mere lengthening in time or space, or to increase range or scope of activities or influence.

Hence, i submit that "protract" has the connnotation that you are suggesting. "Prolong" does not infer intent to the action, merely that the extending may be beyond what is normal. If the motive is to extend the relationship in this way, perhaps deepening the commitment or strengthening the bond beyond the usual, then "prolong" may be the perfect word. If the idea is simply to lengthen the relationship beyond its present state, then "extend" would be sufficient.

It would be quite proper to say, for example, "Our family enjoyed prolonged conversations on cold winter nights." Such would not be "forced" or "dragged out". Other examples might be "a prolonged kiss" or "a prolonged good-bye".

Prolonged seems to have a more personal tone than extended. Warranties, jail sentences, deadlines and debates are extended, whereas a loving embrace, a tearful farewell or a warm welcome are prolonged. Of course, so are agony, depression and illness. In the case of ilness, "prolonged" and "extended" are both in common use.

Two or more people will often disagree on the shade of meaning of any given English word and there is seldom a strictly right or wrong choice of synonyms. Picking (choosing, selecting) the "right" (proper, appropriate, suitable) the same (similar, like)meaning is a fine art which takes a lifetime to fail to master.

CharonPlu Thursday 02nd of June 2005 02:45:55 PM
- [quote]
[i]Originally posted by Guest[/i]
Thank you your considered opinion. I agree that your alternative would work well.

I will make a very respectful suggestion, based on experience. While it's interesting to give one's personal connotation of a word, it is usually not an effective teaching tool. A report starting, "To me...implies" lacks authority. At best, it helps the reader to better communicate with this one person. What a word means to me is not of great importance. What it really means is significant.

The safest way to learn the real connotation (accepted meaning) is to use a good dictionary that gives, besides the basic definition, usage suggestions.

For American English, the best volume i've found is "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language". It says of "prolong":
1. To lengthen in duration, protract. 2. To lengthen in extent.
Synonyms: prolong, protract, extend. These verbs mean to lengthen in time or space. Prolong implies an increase in duration (time) beyond normal limits. Protract adds to prolong the idea of lengthening indefinitely or unnecessarily. Extend can refer to mere lengthening in time or space, or to increase range or scope of activities or influence.

Hence, i submit that "protract" has the connnotation that you are suggesting. "Prolong" does not infer intent to the action, merely that the extending may be beyond what is normal. If the motive is to extend the relationship in this way, perhaps deepening the commitment or strengthening the bond beyond the usual, then "prolong" may be the perfect word. If the idea is simply to lengthen the relationship beyond its present state, then "extend" would be sufficient.

It would be quite proper to say, for example, "Our family enjoyed prolonged conversations on cold winter nights." Such would not be "forced" or "dragged out". Other examples might be "a prolonged kiss" or "a prolonged good-bye".

Prolonged seems to have a more personal tone than extended. Warranties, jail sentences, deadlines and debates are extended, whereas a loving embrace, a tearful farewell or a warm welcome are prolonged. Of course, so are agony, depression and illness. In the case of ilness, "prolonged" and "extended" are both in common use.

Two or more people will often disagree on the shade of meaning of any given English word and there is seldom a strictly right or wrong choice of synonyms. Picking (choosing, selecting) the "right" (proper, appropriate, suitable) the same (similar, like)meaning is a fine art which takes a lifetime to fail to master.[/quote]

Perhaps I should have said: "The main usage of the word 'prolong' that I have encountered has been toward the negative." For example, 'the treatment prolonged his suffering..' and 'if she prolongs taking action any longer she will lose the deal.'

As you mentioned, each word can have many "shades" to it. Just as each region in the world applies different "shades" to words. The point is, it is not just "you" or "I" that thinks 'prolong' means a certain thing. Its use/intention can even be ambiguous without proper context.

Anya Thursday 02nd of June 2005 09:57:30 PM
- [quote]A report starting, "To me...implies" lacks authority.[/quote] This is an interesting point, one that I've often wondered in grading lab reports and critiquing [scientific] writing.

Is it better to provide a student (or listener) with the source of a statement or leave that open-ended to vague interpretation? I have always been the proponent of citing sources in scientific writing. In the case here, Charon may have in fact looked up a word in an American Dictionary and then interpreted it, which changes the sources a little bit, don't you think? I've wondered whether the interpretive task actually [b]ADDS[/b] value (or authority, if you will) to it. I believe that it does. Especially cultural value, sharing of which is the corner stone and foundation of PhraseBase. And we are each an authority on our own culture here.

[b]Culture[/b]: 1a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought. ([i]The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., online ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000[/i]).

A dictionary, after all, is a compilation of scholarly research about usage of contemporary or historical lexicon. It is a group of academic scholars coming to one consensus about each particular topic (in this case word). The number of dictionaries equals the number of "authoritative consensus."

In day-to-day writing and communication, it is not feasible to site the entire contents of someone's Endnotes, but instead it does add value to say that "this is what I've thought about it....given my background and research." Personal opinion should not be discounted, especially where the more people that contribute the better the scope of the discussion.

We could, I suppose, prolong in their extent our responses and their impact ([i]TAHDEL, 4th ed., online ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000[/i]). It would be rather bulky, even with acronyms.

In my humble opinion, citation, for the sake of authoritative writing, should be reserved to scholarly publications where the endnotes serve for the purpose of evaluating the validity of a reference. In daily discussions, I would much prefer to read what a person thought about a topic and I would consider them to be an authority on what they've thought about and value it more so than if I was solely referred to a dictionary. But that is just my opinion (10:48AM, June 02, 2005).

On the other hand, scientific writing looks rather horrible when written from the first person point of view. Most schools teach their students to utilize the third person in writing down their observations (unless writing subjective responses). Authoritative writing, with full citation is critical in those communications.

So the question remains….is there room for authoritative citation in daily conversation and is there room for personal rumination in scientific writing?

I think the answer is yes, but in moderation.
What do you guys think?

Ulven Sunday 05th of June 2005 04:31:14 PM
- I totally agree with you, Anya. Not many people appreciate both the technical, objective mediums of communication AND the subjective, emotional mediums.
Many objective minds disrespect the true existence of subjectivity in what is called 'truth', and the same can be said the other way, where many people think there is no such thing as objective truths.
I enjoy trying to understand both, and as a result I've been critized (unjustly, I maintain) by both types of people for being too much of the other.

My patience is especially tested when I'm expected to bibliographize my knowledge (and often my existence alomg with it:)lol). Bibliograhies are well placed as a learning tool only if you wish to point someone in a certain direction for further information. But in general conversation, 'proving one's source' often distracts away from the issue at hand, and instead points the attention toward the status of the speakers.

An example of bibliogaraphizing outside suitable circumstances, is when someone who works as a doctor expects you to call them doctor, even if you're not their patient. Or even if you are their patient, it's still inappropriate for the patient to call them doctor outside of
visiting the surgery, unless the patient consents to this cultural practice. Personally, if I met the president of the United States, I'd call him George, not President, regardless of social consequence. If I was his colleague, however, then I'd call him Mr. President.

The same principle applies in language. Bibliographies serve a purpose within a context. But they are often imposed upon unconsenting people who aren't interested in writing down where and when they discovered each word of the language they speak. I don't know where and when I learnt the word 'and', but I don't require authorization to use and teach this word efficiently to others.

But I do respect that some people are haphhazard with what they pass on, and how. So rebellion against parroting mistakes, purely because of the popularity of the mistakes, is very understandable and neccessary. I disbelieve in perpetuating popular misconception. But when teaching a language, you're not teaching them right and wrong, you're teaching them how the language is used. So, learners need to be made aware if incorrect usages in common play aswell as correct ones.

Enough times, native English speakers have criticized my emotional manner of teaching English to learners, yet the very recipients of the said teaching, tend to be adamant about my approach making things clearer. *my trumpet asounding loudly* :p. (This criticism hasn't happened to me here, though;). People are so flexible on this website). So, technical authority is often something we as teachers are 'afraid' the learners want and need, when in reality, all they may want is to be able to not misrepresent their ideas when speaking the new language.

Of course, once they delve into highly specialized fields where etiquette becomes a neccessary means of success, then they may well desire intimate knowledge of strict rules.

Of course each learner is different, so there are going to be English learners out there that would only want technical approaches to teaching, in which case they'd have to say so specifically if in a casual forum such as this. And in turn, I would tell them "I'm not who you're looking for".
There's value to both approaches. It's important to consider the learner's goal before deciding which method is most suitable.

CharonPlu Thursday 09th of June 2005 12:33:23 AM
- [quote]So the question remains….is there room for authoritative citation in daily conversation and is there room for personal rumination in scientific writing?

I think the answer is yes, but in moderation.
What do you guys think?[/quote]

[b]A word on ‘the word’[/b]
Nothing is written in stone, so to speak. Law is interpreted by judges every day and words, even definitions of words, are interpreted by each person all the time. Languages change, especially English. We have no strict ‘language council’ that imposes rules on what words are allowed and what definitions are allowed.

As you were touching on, Ulven, there are two main schools of though on the English language: Those who suggest the language should never change, and those who encourage the evolution of language (i.e., English). Because the world grows, so should the language. Words that meant one thing a year ago perhaps mean another today. Additionally, the world grows in unequal proportions and thus some regions’ definitions will vary from others… but I digress.

[b]Is there room for personal rumination in scientific writing?[/b]
Scientific writing, almost by definition, must be presented as precise and well researched to the reader as humanly possible. The point is to share a new idea, comment on an old one, or simply critique a position in a way that is unbiased and (perhaps) unemotional. Of course, this is not always possible since presenting an idea or opinion in scientific writing means that the writer has already taken a position. But, in true scientific discourse there is little room for ‘personal opinion’ and unsupported evidence. This point leads to the above question. People are not robots and naturally find themselves with opinions they wish to share. If a topic contains unknown quantities, a person’s argument may be partially based on conjecture. Truly, if one presents all facts and then comments on them, the answer to the above question should be yes. We must ask questions to get answers. And, we must make guesswork in order to carry on. Of course, the guesswork must be proved or disproved.

[b]Is there room for authoritative citation in daily conversation?[/b]
Absolutely. We do it all the time, but not in as extensive detail as occurs in scientific writing. For example, you may have read an article on neuroscience in a well know journal and, in conversation with a friend/colleague later that day, say: “I read in this week’s [i]Nature[/i] that…” You’ve just made a verbal citation. Or, if a person has just finished a really great book on the history of a particular region in the world that person might say to their friend “Did you know that…?” “Wow, that’s very interesting. Where did you read that?” “I read it in…”

~ ~ ~

And yes, you are both right. It completely matters who the audience is. At a scientific conference, personal rumination will be less likely accepted unless directly asked for. Just as at a party, (strict) authoritative citation will be looked on as a bore.

Phrasebase Archive
	Brucey	Wednesday 01st of June 2005 01:49:25 AM
	Answering a question - I recently received this question in my message box and have taken the liberty of reprinting it, with a reply, here. [quote]Hi My name is Aey. I'm from Bangkok, Thailand. I would like to ask question as below.. Is is wrong to say 'How can I prolong my relationship' Is it really severe mistake to use 'prolong' in this sentence? Please explain. Thank you for your help.[/quote] The reply: Hello, Aey. It's a pleasure to meet you. To answer your question, no, it is not a mistake, if it's what you mean to say. To prolong is to lengthen. In a relationship, to prolong it is to make it long-lasting, durable. Another way of phrasing it is, "How can i make my relationship last a long time?", or, "How can i make my relationship endure?" The question may be, "How can i strenthen my relationship?" Usually, a strong relationship is a lasting one. Of course, sometimes people may have weak but lasting relationships, such as with someone who performs a service for you. My mail carrier and i don't have a strong or deep relationship, but because we are polite, honest and respectful toward one another, we have had a working relationship for twelve years. On the other hand, i gave my heart in friendship to a brilliant young colleague and sacrificed much, to the point of harming myself, to build both the working relationship and the friendship. I think that was true of her as well. After one foolish mistake on my part, both relationships evaporated after only a few months. The question i failed to ask was, "How can i prolong our relationship?" The only way you might improve your sentence would be to change "my" to "our" or to add "with..." and supply a name, because a relationship needs at least two parties. Keep up the good work. Feel free to ask any more questions. [To all of you, dear readers, i welcome your English questions. You are welcome to use this thread to ask any questions on English usage. You may also private message me, or email me at bruceytom@yahoo.com If you ask me to keep our communication private, of course i will. If it is simply a language question and it can serve to illustrate a point, i may post it publicly, unless you tell me to do othrwise. In the words of the old-time American television hosts, "Keep those cards and letters coming, folks"]
	CharonPlu	Wednesday 01st of June 2005 06:53:29 AM
	- To me, the use of 'prolong' implies that the user is trying to lengthen an event by 'dragging it out' or by doing so 'forcefully' rather than doing it for 'enjoyment' (if you follow...). Thus, it may be better to use the word 'extend' or 'lengthen' instead of 'prolong.' 'Prolong' can still be used, but it's not as [i]positive[/i] as, say, 'extend.' You could also ask: "How can I make my relationship last longer?" Hope this is of any help, ~Charon
		Thursday 02nd of June 2005 01:54:39 PM
	- [quote][i]Originally posted by CharonPlu[/i] To me, the use of 'prolong' implies that the user is trying to lengthen an event by 'dragging it out' or by doing so 'forcefully' rather than doing it for 'enjoyment' (if you follow...). Thus, it may be better to use the word 'extend' or 'lengthen' instead of 'prolong.' 'Prolong' can still be used, but it's not as [i]positive[/i] as, say, 'extend.' You could also ask: "How can I make my relationship last longer?" Hope this is of any help, ~Charon[/quote] Thank you your considered opinion. I agree that your alternative would work well. I will make a very respectful suggestion, based on experience. While it's interesting to give one's personal connotation of a word, it is usually not an effective teaching tool. A report starting, "To me...implies" lacks authority. At best, it helps the reader to better communicate with this one person. What a word means to me is not of great importance. What it really means is significant. The safest way to learn the real connotation (accepted meaning) is to use a good dictionary that gives, besides the basic definition, usage suggestions. For American English, the best volume i've found is "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language". It says of "prolong": 1. To lengthen in duration, protract. 2. To lengthen in extent. Synonyms: prolong, protract, extend. These verbs mean to lengthen in time or space. Prolong implies an increase in duration (time) beyond normal limits. Protract adds to prolong the idea of lengthening indefinitely or unnecessarily. Extend can refer to mere lengthening in time or space, or to increase range or scope of activities or influence. Hence, i submit that "protract" has the connnotation that you are suggesting. "Prolong" does not infer intent to the action, merely that the extending may be beyond what is normal. If the motive is to extend the relationship in this way, perhaps deepening the commitment or strengthening the bond beyond the usual, then "prolong" may be the perfect word. If the idea is simply to lengthen the relationship beyond its present state, then "extend" would be sufficient. It would be quite proper to say, for example, "Our family enjoyed prolonged conversations on cold winter nights." Such would not be "forced" or "dragged out". Other examples might be "a prolonged kiss" or "a prolonged good-bye". Prolonged seems to have a more personal tone than extended. Warranties, jail sentences, deadlines and debates are extended, whereas a loving embrace, a tearful farewell or a warm welcome are prolonged. Of course, so are agony, depression and illness. In the case of ilness, "prolonged" and "extended" are both in common use. Two or more people will often disagree on the shade of meaning of any given English word and there is seldom a strictly right or wrong choice of synonyms. Picking (choosing, selecting) the "right" (proper, appropriate, suitable) the same (similar, like)meaning is a fine art which takes a lifetime to fail to master.
	CharonPlu	Thursday 02nd of June 2005 02:45:55 PM
	- [quote] [i]Originally posted by Guest[/i] Thank you your considered opinion. I agree that your alternative would work well. I will make a very respectful suggestion, based on experience. While it's interesting to give one's personal connotation of a word, it is usually not an effective teaching tool. A report starting, "To me...implies" lacks authority. At best, it helps the reader to better communicate with this one person. What a word means to me is not of great importance. What it really means is significant. The safest way to learn the real connotation (accepted meaning) is to use a good dictionary that gives, besides the basic definition, usage suggestions. For American English, the best volume i've found is "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language". It says of "prolong": 1. To lengthen in duration, protract. 2. To lengthen in extent. Synonyms: prolong, protract, extend. These verbs mean to lengthen in time or space. Prolong implies an increase in duration (time) beyond normal limits. Protract adds to prolong the idea of lengthening indefinitely or unnecessarily. Extend can refer to mere lengthening in time or space, or to increase range or scope of activities or influence. Hence, i submit that "protract" has the connnotation that you are suggesting. "Prolong" does not infer intent to the action, merely that the extending may be beyond what is normal. If the motive is to extend the relationship in this way, perhaps deepening the commitment or strengthening the bond beyond the usual, then "prolong" may be the perfect word. If the idea is simply to lengthen the relationship beyond its present state, then "extend" would be sufficient. It would be quite proper to say, for example, "Our family enjoyed prolonged conversations on cold winter nights." Such would not be "forced" or "dragged out". Other examples might be "a prolonged kiss" or "a prolonged good-bye". Prolonged seems to have a more personal tone than extended. Warranties, jail sentences, deadlines and debates are extended, whereas a loving embrace, a tearful farewell or a warm welcome are prolonged. Of course, so are agony, depression and illness. In the case of ilness, "prolonged" and "extended" are both in common use. Two or more people will often disagree on the shade of meaning of any given English word and there is seldom a strictly right or wrong choice of synonyms. Picking (choosing, selecting) the "right" (proper, appropriate, suitable) the same (similar, like)meaning is a fine art which takes a lifetime to fail to master.[/quote] Perhaps I should have said: "The main usage of the word 'prolong' that I have encountered has been toward the negative." For example, 'the treatment prolonged his suffering..' and 'if she prolongs taking action any longer she will lose the deal.' As you mentioned, each word can have many "shades" to it. Just as each region in the world applies different "shades" to words. The point is, it is not just "you" or "I" that thinks 'prolong' means a certain thing. Its use/intention can even be ambiguous without proper context.
	Anya	Thursday 02nd of June 2005 09:57:30 PM
	- [quote]A report starting, "To me...implies" lacks authority.[/quote] This is an interesting point, one that I've often wondered in grading lab reports and critiquing [scientific] writing. Is it better to provide a student (or listener) with the source of a statement or leave that open-ended to vague interpretation? I have always been the proponent of citing sources in scientific writing. In the case here, Charon may have in fact looked up a word in an American Dictionary and then interpreted it, which changes the sources a little bit, don't you think? I've wondered whether the interpretive task actually [b]ADDS[/b] value (or authority, if you will) to it. I believe that it does. Especially cultural value, sharing of which is the corner stone and foundation of PhraseBase. And we are each an authority on our own culture here. [b]Culture[/b]: 1a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought. ([i]The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., online ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000[/i]). A dictionary, after all, is a compilation of scholarly research about usage of contemporary or historical lexicon. It is a group of academic scholars coming to one consensus about each particular topic (in this case word). The number of dictionaries equals the number of "authoritative consensus." In day-to-day writing and communication, it is not feasible to site the entire contents of someone's Endnotes, but instead it does add value to say that "this is what I've thought about it....given my background and research." Personal opinion should not be discounted, especially where the more people that contribute the better the scope of the discussion. We could, I suppose, prolong in their extent our responses and their impact ([i]TAHDEL, 4th ed., online ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000[/i]). It would be rather bulky, even with acronyms. In my humble opinion, citation, for the sake of authoritative writing, should be reserved to scholarly publications where the endnotes serve for the purpose of evaluating the validity of a reference. In daily discussions, I would much prefer to read what a person thought about a topic and I would consider them to be an authority on what they've thought about and value it more so than if I was solely referred to a dictionary. But that is just my opinion (10:48AM, June 02, 2005). On the other hand, scientific writing looks rather horrible when written from the first person point of view. Most schools teach their students to utilize the third person in writing down their observations (unless writing subjective responses). Authoritative writing, with full citation is critical in those communications. So the question remains….is there room for authoritative citation in daily conversation and is there room for personal rumination in scientific writing? I think the answer is yes, but in moderation. What do you guys think?
	Ulven	Sunday 05th of June 2005 04:31:14 PM
	- I totally agree with you, Anya. Not many people appreciate both the technical, objective mediums of communication AND the subjective, emotional mediums. Many objective minds disrespect the true existence of subjectivity in what is called 'truth', and the same can be said the other way, where many people think there is no such thing as objective truths. I enjoy trying to understand both, and as a result I've been critized (unjustly, I maintain) by both types of people for being too much of the other. My patience is especially tested when I'm expected to bibliographize my knowledge (and often my existence alomg with it:)lol). Bibliograhies are well placed as a learning tool only if you wish to point someone in a certain direction for further information. But in general conversation, 'proving one's source' often distracts away from the issue at hand, and instead points the attention toward the status of the speakers. An example of bibliogaraphizing outside suitable circumstances, is when someone who works as a doctor expects you to call them doctor, even if you're not their patient. Or even if you are their patient, it's still inappropriate for the patient to call them doctor outside of visiting the surgery, unless the patient consents to this cultural practice. Personally, if I met the president of the United States, I'd call him George, not President, regardless of social consequence. If I was his colleague, however, then I'd call him Mr. President. The same principle applies in language. Bibliographies serve a purpose within a context. But they are often imposed upon unconsenting people who aren't interested in writing down where and when they discovered each word of the language they speak. I don't know where and when I learnt the word 'and', but I don't require authorization to use and teach this word efficiently to others. But I do respect that some people are haphhazard with what they pass on, and how. So rebellion against parroting mistakes, purely because of the popularity of the mistakes, is very understandable and neccessary. I disbelieve in perpetuating popular misconception. But when teaching a language, you're not teaching them right and wrong, you're teaching them how the language is used. So, learners need to be made aware if incorrect usages in common play aswell as correct ones. Enough times, native English speakers have criticized my emotional manner of teaching English to learners, yet the very recipients of the said teaching, tend to be adamant about my approach making things clearer. my trumpet asounding loudly :p. (This criticism hasn't happened to me here, though;). People are so flexible on this website). So, technical authority is often something we as teachers are 'afraid' the learners want and need, when in reality, all they may want is to be able to not misrepresent their ideas when speaking the new language. Of course, once they delve into highly specialized fields where etiquette becomes a neccessary means of success, then they may well desire intimate knowledge of strict rules. Of course each learner is different, so there are going to be English learners out there that would only want technical approaches to teaching, in which case they'd have to say so specifically if in a casual forum such as this. And in turn, I would tell them "I'm not who you're looking for". There's value to both approaches. It's important to consider the learner's goal before deciding which method is most suitable.
	CharonPlu	Thursday 09th of June 2005 12:33:23 AM
	- [quote]So the question remains….is there room for authoritative citation in daily conversation and is there room for personal rumination in scientific writing? I think the answer is yes, but in moderation. What do you guys think?[/quote] [b]A word on ‘the word’[/b] Nothing is written in stone, so to speak. Law is interpreted by judges every day and words, even definitions of words, are interpreted by each person all the time. Languages change, especially English. We have no strict ‘language council’ that imposes rules on what words are allowed and what definitions are allowed. As you were touching on, Ulven, there are two main schools of though on the English language: Those who suggest the language should never change, and those who encourage the evolution of language (i.e., English). Because the world grows, so should the language. Words that meant one thing a year ago perhaps mean another today. Additionally, the world grows in unequal proportions and thus some regions’ definitions will vary from others… but I digress. [b]Is there room for personal rumination in scientific writing?[/b] Scientific writing, almost by definition, must be presented as precise and well researched to the reader as humanly possible. The point is to share a new idea, comment on an old one, or simply critique a position in a way that is unbiased and (perhaps) unemotional. Of course, this is not always possible since presenting an idea or opinion in scientific writing means that the writer has already taken a position. But, in true scientific discourse there is little room for ‘personal opinion’ and unsupported evidence. This point leads to the above question. People are not robots and naturally find themselves with opinions they wish to share. If a topic contains unknown quantities, a person’s argument may be partially based on conjecture. Truly, if one presents all facts and then comments on them, the answer to the above question should be yes. We must ask questions to get answers. And, we must make guesswork in order to carry on. Of course, the guesswork must be proved or disproved. [b]Is there room for authoritative citation in daily conversation?[/b] Absolutely. We do it all the time, but not in as extensive detail as occurs in scientific writing. For example, you may have read an article on neuroscience in a well know journal and, in conversation with a friend/colleague later that day, say: “I read in this week’s [i]Nature[/i] that…” You’ve just made a verbal citation. Or, if a person has just finished a really great book on the history of a particular region in the world that person might say to their friend “Did you know that…?” “Wow, that’s very interesting. Where did you read that?” “I read it in…” ~ ~ ~ And yes, you are both right. It completely matters who the audience is. At a scientific conference, personal rumination will be less likely accepted unless directly asked for. Just as at a party, (strict) authoritative citation will be looked on as a bore.