What's right with the Heat

dbrown4 wrote:I was looking at it from the wrong angle as several have pointed out. It just sounded a little presumptuous him leaving out the other teams that will more than likely knock them out way before they would ever get to us. My bad.

db,

Don't worry about it. Showing your visceral distaste for the Heat is not your "bad." We all want 'em to lose.

Did anyone note the quote attributed to Lebron after Obama had to cancel his plans to attend the game?

“For him to actually see what I do live, it would have been great,” James said before the game, “but he’s a busy man.”

One of the shabbiest statements I've seen lately. Because I hate split infinitives.

Sam

That is an unbelievable statement, although I guess I should believe by now that he'd say something like that.

By the way, do you really hate split infinitives, or are you just messin'?

Outside,

Yup, I hate split infinitives. And don't dangle your participle around me either.

I realize language usage has evolved. And I would never call anyone (except Lebron) on something like that. Heck, I blame Lebron when I stop up my toilet.

But the E.B. White in me (I wish!) does miss the times when language really mattered. Actually, it was E.B. who famously stated, "Words still matter to me." He became one of my heroes when a couple of fortuitous chats with him greatly influenced my life as a kid.

Sam

jaysuz sam...well as you write i must drive you half nuts. One thing is there is some damn good writers up in here and you and outside are among the best!

Sam,

Well then, you've cringed plenty reading my posts, because I'm in the camp that doesn't consider split infinitives bad form. I'd be happy to have a discussion about it, but I've found that it basically comes down to this:

Me: "So why exactly are split infinitives not allowed?"
Them: "Because."

Or, if they're feeling expansive:

Them: "Because Mrs. Pringlehoffer in 4th grade said so, and that's the end of it."

I may have recommended it before, but there's a book I thoroughly enjoy on language, including split infinitives, called "If You Catch an Adjective, Kill It," by Ben Yagoda. My kids think I'm nuts, but I consider it highly entertaining and insightful. As you may have guessed, the author falls on the side of those who consider split infinitives acceptable. Two of my favorite quotes in the book are regarding another bugaboo for strict traditionalists -- ending a sentence with a preposition.

1. Winston Churchill, when corrected for violating this rule, supposedly replied, "That is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."
2. A guy from South Philadelphia, on vacation in London, asks a bowler-hatted gent, "Where's the subway at?" The Londoner replies, "Don't you Yanks realize that it's poor English to end a sentence with a preposition?" To which the South Philly guy says, "Okay, where's the subway at, asshole?"

Anyway, I'm more than happy to have a convivial discussion about language, at least until the rest the board pelts us with virtual rotten tomatoes.

Outside

Outside,

I might look up that book, as it sounds like fun. For me, the only really definiitive work on the English language is Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style." I used to have a copy in every room of my house, including the bathrooms. But people took a lot of them, which was fine with me. Now that I think about it, that may have been my subconscious motive for displaying the books in the first place.

My aversion to split infinitives and dangling participles applies primarily to my own writing. As I said earlier, it really doesn't matter enough for me to call other people on it. Who the heck am I to do that?

It's the same thing when someone says "Bob gave the book to he and I." Absolutely wrong because the rule is that, although that wording might sound sophisticated, either of the objects of the preposition should be able to stand alone. One would probably not say, "Bob gave the book to I." At least maybe not until it comes into general usage in a few decades, when that sawing sound you hear will be my teeth grinding in my grave.

The rules of language were strictly enforced when I was young because they were considered correct. And BELIEVE me, there are many things that have changed in our society since those times without my having seen any evidence that they were proven incorrect. They evolved primarily because people collectively became comfortable in changing them (usually over some period of time).

And here's one of MY favorite all-time parables to let you know what I think of the weight of numbers as being a consistently legitimate reason for change. I may not have it precisely right, but it's close enough. Abraham Lincoln and his cabinet were at odds over some issue, so Abe decided to put it to a vote. He then announced the results of the vote. "That's 12 nays and one aye. The ayes have it."

The day I ever change my mind on a firmly held principle just because the majority disagrees will be the day I turn in my breathing badge. Let others present their reasoning, then let me present my reasoning, and let's see who's right. But neither is there a reason to become agitated over it because that would be arrogant, and life's far too short to spend it on trifles.

I've always appreciated those two preposition stories so much that I'm now not above using a preposition at the end of a sentence. Many people claim to have originated the second one. I was at a baseball writers' dinner a number of years ago, and one of the featured speakers was a former umpire (I can't recall his name) who, a few years earlier, had stopped a street thief and had been seriously injured in the process. In fact, he was now a paraplegic. He was there because of his upbeat outlook on life. And he told that same story, but substituted Lou Piniella as the batter and "Where was that ball at, asshole?" as the punch line. Needless to say, he said he had run Lou.

Language is a lot of fun to discuss. One need only to read message boards to understand how varying interpretations of words can underscore the importance of adhering to the old adage, "Listen to what I mean, not to what I say."

Sam

Outside,

Following is a passage from our book, Paris Demystified, which just hit Amazon and other sites yesterday.

As Gene Kelly's Jerry Mulligan says in the movie, An American in Paris, "It's too real and too beautiful to ever let you forget anything." Notwithstanding the split infinitive, he has a point.

At least I try to always be consistent.

Sam

Sam wrote:Outside,

Notwithstanding the split infinitive, he has a point.

At least I try to always be consistent.
Sam

Ba dum dum. Splash.

LOL, to both of you.

Geez all this complicated talk about split infinitives, I'll go back to something more simple like math...
Elements of Style is a great resource, at least that's what my Pop used to tell me, if I ever learn how to read, it's near the top of my list...
or if it ever comes out as a comic book, I'm all over it...
Hey what about those Celtics anyway. Thirteen and counting. They've been splitting a lot of other team's infinitives lately and JONeil may be back soon, great ride so far.

The Elements of Style isn't a book, it's the writer's bible.

From the section on Misused Words and Expressions:

"Split Infinitive. There is precedent from the fourteenth century down for interposing an adverb between to and the infinitive it governs, but the construction should be avoided unless the writer wishes to place unusual stress on the adverb.

to diligently inquire to inquire diligently

14. Avoid fancy words. . . . The split infinitive is another trick of rhetoric in which the ear must be quicker than the handbook. Some infinitives seem to improve upon being split, just as a stick of round stovewood does. "I cannot bring myself to really like the fellow." The sentence is relaxed, the meaning is clear, the violation is harmless and barely perceptible. Put the other way the sentence becomes stiff, needlessly formal. A matter of ear."

Then there's the finest passage in the book. It has nothing to do with split infinitives, but deserves quoting.

Talking about his mentor, Will Strunk, in the Introduction, E.B. White says:

"When he delivered his oration on brevity to the class, he leaned forward over his desk, grasped his coat lapels in his hand, and, in a husky, conspiratorial voice, said: "Rule Seventeen. Omit needless words!
Omit needless words! Omit needless words!

". . . Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all sentences shortor avoid all detail and treat subjects only in outline, but that every word tell."

"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I've written a long one instead." - attributed to Blaise Pascal, Mark Twain, and Mr Voltaire, and probably others too.

I couldn't agree more on the wisdom of "omit needless words." As I edit my writing, I find my most effective tool is usually the Delete key.

I also like the guideline that the acceptability of split infinitives is "a matter of ear," though White can't bring himself to fully embrace them as acceptable -- he says his example is relaxed, the meaning clear, but there is still a "violation," even if he calls it harmless and barely perceptible.

By the way, to anyone reading this discussion who wonders what on earth a split infinitive is, I'll attempt to explain. An infinitive is a verb that uses to and contains multiple words -- to write, to work out, and so forth. A split infinitive occurs when the writer inserts a word (usually an adverb) between the verb components. A common example is the Star Trek motto -- "to boldly go where no man has gone before." It's a split infinitive because "boldly" is between the infinitive verb components "to go."

In my view, White's assertion that splitting an infinitive places stress on the adverb or is somehow awkward doesn't hold up. In the previous paragraph, I said "the prohibition against split infinitives was based originally...", but if I had used the split infinitive form "was originally based," the sentence reads fine (and, to me, actually sounds more natural and conversational). What I have found is that constructing sentences to avoid split infinitives sometimes leads to awkward, unnecessarily formal construction.

Certain sentences can lose their power if rewritten to avoid a split infinitive, and others defy any credible construction other than using a split infinitive. For example:

1. I expect the Celtics' assists to more than double in a year.

2. His first thought, when something went wrong, was to immediately hit the Escape key.

I can't think of any acceptable revision to the above sentences that avoids the split infinitive.

Yet another way to look at it is that every infinitive is split -- with a space.

I probably use split infinitives more than necessary, and I wish I was more aware of creating them so that I could avoid them more often. In my work as a technical writer, I need to minimize the usage of split infinitives because my customers or the ultimate end reader (my customers' customers) may dislike them and think that their usage reflects poorly on the document and, by extension, my customers' product and my customers.

In the end, I think White is correct that it is a matter of ear -- does it sound okay? Each person has a different ear, so we may have differing answers to a particular case.

Okay, enough for now. To boldly go... back to work.

Outside

My great aunt was a housekeeper for E.B. White in Brooklin, Maine, which my family used to visit each summer when I was between ages 8 and 16. She took me to meet the great man when I was probably around 12. It was an "audience" I never forgot. When I left his house that day, I was convinced I would become an author. (Among other things, the working lifestyle appealed to me.) I met him again in his New York City apartment for a continuation of the dialog.

His quest for writing conciseness was legendary. I always aspired to that literary end. But unfortunately it never "took." My run-on sentences may be the antithesis of his style. I wish conjunctions had never been invented.

I was conversing, off the board, with Kelly Green the other day. She's watching the board...not posting much these days. I complimented her on the conciseness of her writing, and she responded that it wasn't without considerable effort. I think her message consisted of about six sentences. She said she had gone back and edited every one of them. Good for Kelly.

Sam

I think and type like english is my second language sometimes. Never took formal typing so it's a modified hunt and peck method.

Always amazed to watch the wife as she can look at me and type at the same time. Problem I have with using both hands is then the keys are all hidden.

Spelling as most of you know is also one of my "best" subjects too (GYSO inject some humor here) I remember the old 11th grade english regents and the spelling part they would give you a word that no red blooded 16 yr old American lad would ever consider using and spell it correct and 3 other ways and you had to pick out the correct spelling. Oh well I did graduate.

I must also add that I just absolutely love Sam's writing style. Perhaps it's because I've met him but I liked it long before that April 08 get together. The wit and humor combined to remind me of a line used for baseball broadcaster Vin Scully (only this would refer to the written word............."the man paints pictures with his words."

beat

(and how the heck do we get this back to being about the Heat


I will say this the refs swallowed their whistles on Washington's last play because certainly there was contact on Hinrich. And it wasn't verticality either. Bosh and Bron both bodied him, but if the Wiz had made a couple of better plays down the stretch it would never have come down to a failed drive to the bucket anyway. Good teams find ways to win these games and with a little no call of the zebras they pulled this one out.

beat

Outside,

I wish it were realistic to expect the Celtics' assists to increase by more than 100% within a year's time. One good thing about language is that, given the plethora of words and expressions available to all of us, there are alternatives to falling blindly into the split infinitive trap. By using a little ingenuity, one can invariably think of remedial wording that sounds fine and provides sufficient emphasis yet does not break the split infinitive rule. If an acceptable substitute proves elusive on the first try, it is possible to hit the delete key immediately.

I, too have experienced concerns in authoring more than 1,200 research reports. My primary quandary is how to prevent the report writing discipline from blunting the creativity in my other writing. I have never found a solution.

Consequently, as I mentioned to Kelly Green in our recent exchange, I've never liked my writing style. As my first Thesis advisor said, the writing in my first draft was stilted, bombastic and pedantic. I'll never never forget those three words, and I still have that typewritten disaster. I was crushed! But he was right!

One of the reasons our Paris book was 20 years in the making is that I must have reviewed and edited each page at least 10 times in efforts to make the prose more interesting. Here's hoping the time was reasonably well spent. If only it were possible to be compensated by the hour rather than by the book. lol.

Sam

Gyso -- I'd love to see more of your humor in your writing. I think this is an ideal forum (see, a pun) to give it a try. I mostly include humor for my own amusement, and I'm sure there are some people who don't like my style, but that's okay. Every now and then, someone takes one of my attempts at humor the wrong way, but a followup post usually mends the fences. A small price to pay for allowing me to amuse myself.

Beat -- you want to talk about the Heat? And here I thought you didn't like them much. (Ha.)

Sam -- I think you've left stilted, bombastic, and pedantic in the rear view mirror. Well, stilted and bombastic, anyway. (There I go again.) My guess is that you've found a reasonably happy balance between writer and editor in your head (at least I hope so by now). One question, though -- didn't you have an editor for your Paris book? A good editor is difficult to find but can be a writer's best friend. If I'd been your editor, I think I would've said at some point, just gimme the ~!@#$%^& book so I can publish it.

So, to Beat's suggestion, how 'bout them Heat? So they got a win over the woeful Wizards who were without Wall? Meh. A win's a win, but still, meh. (And my second sentence is worth 427 points in the Alliteration Game.)

It will be interesting to see how the Heat do in their game today against the Mavs, who are 21-5 and have both a capable point guard (Kidd) and post presence (Tyson Chandler, plus Nowitzki, when he drives). I hope Dirk is on tonight.

Outside

Outside,

Nope, no editor. You're right, an editor would probably have kicked our butts if (s)he thought the thing was any good.

One thing that took so long was that, every time we complete a draft, we'd get copies printed cheaply at a copy shop and would give them to acquaintances who were about to visit Paris. So it became a series of cycles: update the book, print copies, give it to friends, await and digest their critiques, update the book, etc.

Then, every year or two, we'd descend on our Paris bookstore friend for his evolving commentary from a bookstore sales point of view. The original iteration of Shakespeare & Company was owned by one of my heroes, Sylvia Beach, who mentored a few guys named James Joyce (Silvia bankrolled and published Ulysees when it was banned everywhere), Ernest Hemingway, Ezra Pound, Thornton Wilder, and many more. She gave these then-struggling would-be-authors a place to stay. Sylvia incurred huge debt in publishing Ulysees; and, when it became popular, Joyce went with another publisher so Sylvia recouped hardly a cent.

Hemingway seemed to be a favored client. Sylvia wrote the following passage associated with the Liberation of Paris in World War II. We've included this in our book in the section devoted to Sylvia and the store. The "Adrienne" she mentions was her lifelong partner. I think this is one of the most romantic pieces of writing I've encountered. And it's not pedantic, stilted, or bombastic.

Sam

Sylvia's account:

There was still a lot of shooting going on in the Rue de l’Odéon, and we
were getting tired of it, when one day a string of jeeps came up the street
and stopped in front of my house. I heard a deep voice calling, "Sylvia!"
And everybody in the street took up the cry of "Sylvia!’

"It’s Hemingway!" cried Adrienne (Adrienne Monnier, a close friend). I
flew downstairs; we met with a crash; he picked me up and swung me
around and kissed me while people on the street and in the windows
cheered.

We went up to Adrienne’s apartment and sat Hemingway down....in
battle dress, grimy and bloody. A machine gun clanked on the floor....
We asked him if he could do something about the Nazi snipers on the
rooftops.... He got his company out of the jeeps and took them up to
the roof. We heard firing for the last time in the Rue de l’Odéon.

Hemingway and his men came down again and rode off in their jeeps "to
liberate," according to Hemingway, "the (wine) cellar at the Ritz."

Not to erroneously stop the English lesson which I love, (haha!) the question I had had no real place to go so I thought I'd ask it here. Do free throws count as points in the paint? Or does is matter where you are fouled? How about if you are fouled in the paint and go to the line? Do those points (the free throws) count as PIP? How about if you are fouled on a mid-range jumper and go to the line?

Confused again in NC

dbrown

Here is a little info. Foul shots derived from fouls in the paint DO NOT count towards the points in the paint total



NBA "Points in the Paint"
by Roland Beech, Founder 82games.com


Among the little details you come across in "official" NBA box scores is the Points In Paint total for each team for a game. These days you do hear the stat bandied about a fair amount by commentators, shown on the first half summary stats on broadcasts and the like...and of course many a coach has been heard lamenting how many points were given up in the paint by his team in the post-game discussion.

Now this official number has some major problems to my mind:

it does not include points from free throws where the foul was drawn in the paint
we are not told how many shots were taken in the paint, or how many turnovers in the paint
...and consequently there is no way from the straight box score to extrapolate any kind of efficiency measure for points per possession on "in the paint" activity


beat

Cool. Good to know!

dbrown4 wrote:Not to erroneously stop the English lesson which I love, (haha!) the question I had had no real place to go so I thought I'd ask it here. Do free throws count as points in the paint? Or does is matter where you are fouled? How about if you are fouled in the paint and go to the line? Do those points (the free throws) count as PIP? How about if you are fouled on a mid-range jumper and go to the line?

Confused again in NC

Would you count them in the paint? Would you, could you if they ain't?
I do not think the paint goes there. I do not think it would be fair.

Of course it matters where you are. It always matters be if near or far.
I'd rather the fouls to go,
against players the ball normally goes.
But when it comes down to the clinch, I'll take'em on those off the bench.

Abnormally confused in CA

.

Thank you, Dr. Seuss for that update!