• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Assume v. Presume

Exactly my point. It records how words have been used, regardless of correctness, so there is still plenty of room for us to argue over what is correct. Neither is correctness defined by popular vote.
 
That's "who", not "what"!

Is this not the whole point of AvP? Common usage isn't synonymous with being correct. You can't leave these matters to the uneducated masses! Yes, they might use the word "control" or even "remote" as nouns, and it is far less important in the spoken word than it is in writing, but I ask myself whether these colloquial, even slang, terms are more appropriate than a word which is properly a noun and appropriately describes the class of object. As I keep bringing up, is a red ball a "red" or a "ball" - and I notice nobody has found a way to counter that argument.

That's what I mean by defining correctness: does it work in a logical and consistent manner compared with similar examples.
 
Last edited:
In modern English, can 'red' be used in any other context other than as an adjective? And as English traditional rules of grammar always put the adjective before the noun, it's obviously a 'ball', not a 'red'.
 
But it's not a "red" and a "black" though, is it. The subject has already been introduced, ie "snooker ball", and in the context "red" and "black" are used as short-form references as the only means to tell them apart. In a proper literary construction the sentence would read (presuming the context of snooker is already established) "He needs to pot another red ball and then the black to win the frame". "Ball" is implied after "black" because the previous use of a colour adjective was applied to "ball", and we also know from the sentence that there is one black ball but more than one red.

In summary, my contention is that "red" and "black" in the cited example are not true nouns, but adjectives with an implied noun - the same as "remote" and/or "control" are adjectives which may well imply a noun in the context but make the listener/reader do more work if the context is not obvious.
 
Taken in the context of snooker, most everybody would understand the red etc. was indicating a specifically coloured ball. Taken in the context of TV everybody would understand that 'remote' or 'remote control' refers to the aforementioned remote control handset. Just as the noun 'ball' on its own conveys insufficient information in the context of snooker, 'handset' on its own also conveys insufficient information in the context of electronics. Much better to use the more familiar 'remote' or 'remote control' with 'remote' as the adjective and 'control' as the noun.
are adjectives which may well imply a noun in the context but make the listener/reader do more work if the context is not obvious.
Click to expand...
But if you are talking about TVs etc. there is no more work to do, as everyone knows exactly what is being talked about. It's the use of 'handset' without accompanying adjectives that causes the reader/listener 'do more work'.
 
But my contention is that the habit of referring to it as a "remote" has caused the dictionaries to accept it as a noun, whereas (I think we can agree) it is actually an adjective to an implied noun, and it is only by habit that users assume they can get away with referring to a "remote" without necessarily establishing the context.

Also, in snooker there are many balls and it is necessary to distinguish between them. In the context of TV there is no confusion about which handset you might be referring to - it's the remote control handset. It's a handset, and it controls remotely. The context guarantees it's not the telephone handset that we mean, unless otherwise specified.

I'm not trying to stop people calling it a "remote" if that's what they want to do. What I am doing is setting out the justification for calling it a handset, as I will continue to do in writing, and it should not require explanation.
 
Black Hole said:
But it's not a "red" and a "black" though, is it.
Click to expand...

Correct usage requires a question mark there. If you want to ignore convention, that is your prerogative, but don't expect many to follow you.

Control is a noun as well as a verb. I don't subscribe to the presumption that nouns cannot become verbs, and vice versa. Your assumptions about English and what is right or wrong are too rigid.
 
Mike0001 said:
Correct usage requires a question mark there.
Click to expand...
Your assumptions are also too rigid, although I admit I might have done better than a full stop. I use (what I call) "functional" punctuation - by which I mean the punctuation should improve the understanding of the text it is in, not just be there because of received rules. The intention of the statement in question was not for it to end on a rising inflection, because it was not a question.

A question mark would have implied I was asking a question (which I wasn't). I'm not sure it was a rhetorical question (writing this I have not made up my mind what exactly constitutes a rhetorical question), if it had been I could maybe have put "(ret)?" like I did in another recent post. Maybe "?!" would have done. Or just "!".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top