He thought it was "cute." Oy vey.

A poster on another site I use, recently wrote a complaint about one of my postings. Unfortunately I can't now retrieve it as the webmaster removed it as it was a personal attack, and I can't remember the exact wording. However, it was so bad that I actually couldn't understand what he was complaining about.

The phrase was something like, "...all I get from you is infer's and refusals..."

Refusals I could work out (I had declined to comment on one of his assertions) but "infer's" had me stumped. Did he mean implications, do you think?

I can't even ask him as the thread has now been blocked - but it was a good example of the importance of the correct use of the apostrophe (as well as the correct use of the verb "to infer")

Perhaps he was speaking fractured French, and thought you were giving him hells?

quote:

Perhaps he was speaking fractured French, and thought you were giving him hells?

Well, maybe - but considering he came from Ireland, I feel that is an improbable scenario...

quote:

all I get from you is infer's

Inferences?

quote:

Inferences?

But how would he get an inference from me? He might infer something himself from what I have written, but he'd not get an inference from me.

Of course, he might not have realised than an inference is not the same as an implication and just used the wrong noun.

You could have told him what you inferences were.

The MWDEU (link) has a good entry on imply and infer, and how it has been used since Sir Thomas More introduced it into English in the 16th century.

We've already tried to discuss this with Richard.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

Richard

Yes, goofy. Sadly so. I have noticed that Richard also uses turgid prose to mean that somebody (viz. MWDEU or Geoff Pullum) disagrees with him. FWIW and FTR and NB, when I use imply and infer i use them in the approved peevologists' senses of those words. It's a neat rhetorical trick, feigning ignorance of what your interlocutor is saying. I have used it myself on occasion, but unfortunately it does not always work.

Well, the one thing nobody would disagree with is that the use of the apostrophe was wrong. I agree, arnie, that he most likely had meant "inferences," and I suspect most would have understood "inferences" from that context. However, "infers" instead of "inferences" is clearly wrong, no matter if you agree or disagree with the peevologists (which, by the way, is becoming one of my favorite words!)

quote:

We've already tried to discuss this with Richard.

I go along with the recommendations of "The Times" style and usage guide and the COED, both of whom say that the use of "infer" as a synonym for "imply" is incorrect and should be avoided.

That it might be easy to find contrary advice does not alter my stance; I will stick to the recommendations of the two highly respected authorities I cite.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I go along with the recommendations of "The Times" style and usage guide and the COED, both of whom say that the use of "infer" as a synonym for "imply" is incorrect and should be avoided.

That it might be easy to find contrary advice does not alter my stance; I will stick to the recommendations of the two highly respected authorities I cite.

That's fine, but that's not what I was trying to talk about when we talked about it.

Peevologist? I think I'm one of them. I ran out of Flomax, now I want to (Latin "volo") pee, but can't.

quote:

That's fine, but that's not what I was trying to talk about when we talked about it.

Then I fear I don't know what you're talking about. I maintain that "imply" and "infer" are two different words with two different meanings. The fact that it might not always have been this way, or that others don't accept the distinction, is a matter for others to decide about. I will continue to use the words correctly according to "The Times" style guide.

quote:

Yes, goofy. Sadly so. I have noticed that Richard also uses turgid prose to mean that somebody (viz. MWDEU or Geoff Pullum) disagrees with him.

I don't recall ever having used that device - although I agree that I might have descibed the ponderous utterings of some lexical writers thus.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Then I fear I don't know what you're talking about.

You wrote:

quote:

And there are those who use "imply" and "infer" to mean the same thing as well. I reckon that's pretty close to being sub-zero. (And equally wrong)

This is a claim about how the language is used. And it's false, as zmježd and I tried to show more than once.

Opinions about how some people think the words should be used is a completely different matter from how the words are actually used. I'm not giving you advice on how I think you should use the words. I'm just saying that it's just not true to say that people are confusing these two words.

quote:

I'm just saying that it's just not true to say that people are confusing these two words.

But it is true; many people do confuse the two words. As many people confuse its and it's; stationery and stationary; complement and compliment.

That the better versed in the use of language do not confuse them is not the point; it is the fact that many people do. Frequently.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
But it is true; many people do confuse the two words.

Have you not read anything I've written?

The entry for infer in Merriam-Webster Online, particularly the usage note, covers this as well as can be expected. If Richard chooses to believe to the contrary, he is welcome. Since Richard's preferred usage only goes back to the first world war, as opposed to almost five centuries, and only a few people make the same distinction, I suspect it will die out in the not-too-distant future.

quote:

Since Richard's preferred usage only goes back to the first world war, as opposed to almost five centuries, and only a few people make the same distinction, I suspect it will die out in the not-too-distant future.

I accept that probably many people don't make the distinction - but if such authorities as COED and The Times make it then I think I am in better company than than such people.

If a person prefers to take MW's viewpoint rather than The Times's or the COED's then they have that right.

quote:

Have you not read anything I've written?

Yes. Obviously I haven't understood the point you are trying to make. So far as I can see you are simply re-stating MW's opinion - which differs from that of other authorities'.

quote:

If a person prefers to take MW's viewpoint rather than The Times's or the COED's then they have that right.

Quite. And no doubt the person you affected not to understand was exercising that right.

quote:

Quite. And no doubt the person you affected not to understand was exercising that right.

A reasonable assumption but one I suspect is inaccurate. To start with he's Irish, not American and secondly I doubt that he would even know how to use a dictionary - judging from his shocking level of literacy.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

Have you not read anything I've written?

Yes. Obviously I haven't understood the point you are trying to make. So far as I can see you are simply re-stating MW's opinion - which differs from that of other authorities'.

I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about facts. The facts are in the M-W usage note: there are four senses for infer, and complaints about infer/imply, which were first raised around WWI, have targeted a use that has been part of English for four centuries.

These are facts. Now, "people confuse imply and infer" is a factual claim, we can check it by looking at the evidence. And the evidence shows us that it is a gross oversimplification. The truth is much more compicated than that.

Yes, The Times and the COED have opinions about how they think we should use imply and infer, and maybe other guides have other opinions. But these opinions are not the same as the facts of language.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

Good grief! I expected one or two comments, and I've got a battle going on! I expected several learned comments on agnotology in the Q&A forum, and got only Kalleh! People are really unfathomable!

Asa the bewildered more than ever

I don't recall ever having used that device

quote:

Stripping aside the MW somewhat turgid prose they seem to be saying that there was at one time a common meaning for "infer" and "imply" but that a distinction has been made since the end of WW1 (link).

quote:

Frankly I believe that all academics who write this kind of nonsense should be sentenced to a spell of reading and translating the turgid and arcane writings of fellow adademics into readable prose! (link)

quote:

I had always understood that the reason for the turgid and arcane prose that litters legal documents, was to make the content unambiguous (albeit terminally boring!) (link)

quote:

Too many academics seem to write in a pompous and turgid way. (link)

quote:

Insofar as the use of language is concerned I draw a distinction between language that is used to make a passage sound or look beautiful, and arcane and turgid language that is used simply to give some spurious air of importance to a straightforward subject. (link)

But, you get the idea now, I would hazard.

It's not a battle; it's a discussion. Everyone has been civilized, which is nice because subjects like this inflame the peevologists and anti-peevologists.

At the risk of keeping this subject going when we know there are two thoughts and never the twain shall meet, I'd like to say this one tiny thing. It is not merely Merriam Webster. It is all the major style guides in the U.S. (Chicago Manual of style, APA, etc.), with the exception of the Strunk and White (I imagine; I no longer bother to turn the pages of that relic). I am wondering if this is more a U.S./U.K. phenomenon (with Canada joining the U.S.!) since it is the COED and Times being recalcitrant. It actually surprises me about the Times and COED because the evidence surely seems be on the side of MW here (looking at dates). And it is unfair to say that using them similarly is confusing because that's what synonyms (like "obstinate" and "stubborn") are all about.

quote:

But, you get the idea now, I would hazard.

I never suggested that I don't use the expression "turgid"; I said I don't use it as a device to to suggest that someone disagrees with me and theory to put him or her down.

Some of the writing about language that has been cited here is, to say the least, very turgid and quite unnecessarily so. Especially this passage "..."In the next circle are the interaction (sic), the interactional conditions that arise from each interactant's interactional stance, an interactional context that involves the degree of alignment preceived by each interactant, and the developmental aspects of interaction."..."

And having re-written what I have said about some academics I see no reason to change an iota of it.

One additional point: Richard, I think one thing you might not understand is that there is a different perspective of linguists. I found this one little sentence by goofy to say it all: Opinions about how some people think the words should be used is a completely different matter from how the words are actually used. The COED and the Times are working with the opinions; linguists are working with the facts. There really is a different perspective here. While you don't agree with the linguist's perspective, I am certain that you can understand it and respect it.

quote:

And it is unfair to say that using them similarly is confusing because that's what synonyms (like "obstinate" and "stubborn") are all about.

That's not what my objection is. My objection is that the words "imply" and "infer", the way that I and The Times choose to use them are almost opposites. So to use them as synonyms is a possible cause of confusion.

The Times style guide has this useful advice for those who prefer to use the words in the post WW1 manner:

"We imply things when we speak; we infer things when we listen".

Wise advice from one of the world's oldest and most respected newspapers.

Did you read my above post? Perhaps not.

I agree with most of your post; I just happened not to agree that it's OK to treat "infer" and "imply" as synonyms.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I agree with most of your post; I just happened not to agree that it's OK to treat "infer" and "imply" as synonyms.

I never said it was OK to treat "infer" and "imply" as synonyms either. I've repeated ad nauseam the facts of the matter. But I don't think I've ever given my opinion about how I think the words should be used.

quote:

I never said it was OK to treat "infer" and "imply" as synonyms either.

I'm sorry that I didn't make it clear whose post I was responding to. It was Kalleh who wrote: "...And it is unfair to say that using them similarly is confusing because that's what synonyms (like "obstinate" and "stubborn") are all about....".

My response was to her posting, not to any one of yours.