One of my least favorite columnists, Dennis Byrne, wrote the following, and I thought I had him: "Some of us had mistakenly thunk that the Constitution itself carefully spelled out how to change the Constitution."

Thunk??? I would have said, "some of us had mistakenly thought..."

However, I see that "thunk" is in the dictionary as the past tense of "think." How do you say it?

The COED lists it but suggests its use is jocular. Certainly we would not use it in formal speech in the UK

Richard English

Yes, definitely jocular, and probably most often heard in the phrase "Who'da thunk it?!"

"Think/thunk" parallels "stink/stunk" BUT that doesn't make it correct.

Drink/Drank/Drunk
Sink/Sank/Sunk

Any others?

Jocular but dangerous. I hear "snuck" all the time now instead of "sneaked".

Regarding "snuck/sneaked," it's odd but I see "snuck" used more often when the speaker seems to disapprove of the illicit behavior as in "He snuck out without paying his bill." "Sneaked" seems to imply, well, sneakiness but not necessarily of quite so evil an intent as in "He sneaked into the house quietly so as to avoid having more chores assigned to him."

Of course, it could be just me...

Well, thank you everyone! I agree that the only time I have heard it said is in the "Who'd have thunk it?" context, much the same way "ain't" is used.

I dislike this Dennis Byrne so intensely and have already sent him some e-mails disagreeing with his comments. However, this time I feel all superior because he most definitely shouldn't have used an informal term in this formal column on the editorial page.

"I am a international graduate medical assistant student in Washington State. Now I want to
study nursing in New York City, but I do not know what is the quality
for apply the nursing program in NY. How long will it take to finish the program?  I know New York City Board of Education offers LPN class, and I have wrote so many letters to Adult Practical Nursing Prgoram asking about this, but they have never gave me help. I hope you can help me~~~Thanks!"

Can anyone wonder why this young lady has not received a reply? What should I say to her?

Hm...

As an "international graduate medical assistant student" does that mean that English might not be her first language? If so, we ought not be too hard on her.

In any case, I've seen worse, and at least what she asks is comprehensible. Some people seem to be incapable of typing a decent email; even though they would never dream of sending a snail-mail letter with so many mistakes they don't seem to hesitate to send it by email.

It is generally politic to ignore such errors unless they cause the meaning to be unclear.

To an extent I agree with arnie. If English isn't her first language then we should be a little easier on her. However most study programs (in this country at least - I don't know about there) require a particular level of English from their students. Here, for example, there is something called an IELTS examination which needs to be passed by prospective University students if their first language isn't English. Most Universities insist on it.

Is there an equivalent qualification over there. Perhaps, if there is, you could pass the informationon to your correpondent along with the information she asked about.

Glaubt es mir - das Geheimnis, um die größte Fruchtbarkeit und den größten Genuß vom Dasein einzuernten, heisst: gefährlich leben.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

We do have similar requirements, Bob, and I am quite sure that is why she has received no response.

quote:

---

along with the information she asked about.

---

I do want to respond to her, but I don't know what she wants.

However, I do feel, Arnie, that, sweet as you are, you are being far too lenient on her. Yes, we all make mistakes on e-mails, and on this board as well. However, she is writing an e-mail to someone whom she feels can assist her with her career. Wouldn't you want to do the best you could? She must know her limitations! She could have asked someone to help her. And, no, I don't understand what she is saying. Her major question seems to be this one (besides complaining that she hasn't received an answer): "...but I do not know what is the quality for apply the nursing program in NY." That doesn't make any sense at all to me. I don't think she is asking about the "quality" of programs, though. Perhaps she is asking how to apply?

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Mon Oct 20th, 2003 at 12:11.]

Well, thanks to the understanding and gentle natures of Bob and Arnie, I was far more tame in my reply to this young lady than I ever should have been. I very nicely recommended that she take a course at her local community college on English as a second language, and I put her in touch with the LPN organization in the U.S.

Another approach might be to ask her to send you her e-mail in her own native language, then find a translator.

Just out of curiosity I would wonder what her native language is. Asian languages being further from English than European languages (by and large) the gap is harder to bridge. In medicine and nursing careers, communication is so central to doing it well that greater proficiency is necessary, not optional...oral as well as written. Maybe oral skills especially.

Her native language may be a distinct asset for her, though, once she gets her training.

P.S. I suspect the word she was trying to use was "qualifications", not "quality"; but what she really meant was the "prerequisites" for enrolling in such a course.

[This message was edited by haberdasher on Mon Oct 20th, 2003 at 12:39.]

quote:

---

Another approach might be to ask her to send you her e-mail in her own native language, then find a translator.

---

Yes, but, she wants to go to school in the U.S....in nursing. Now, I know you wouldn't want someone discerning your medical orders, often very technical, with that kind of language comprehension. Believe me, I was so sweet with her that......(there must be a cliche for that!). Arnie and Bob would have been very proud of my reply, I am sure!

Hab, we were both posting at the same time. Anyway, judging from her last name, she is Chinese.

Hmm

Yesterday's reply didn't get through. All I can say is that the poor lady was clearly typing in her second language. I would guess she is from Korea, Japan or China, and that she has already been through several years or EAL tuition.

I hate to think this, but perhaps my response was "typically American." Maybe I haven't learned as much as I'd hoped about other cultures.

Thanks, guys, for pointing that out, oh so subtly.

There are large numbers of foreigners, both nurses and doctors, working for the NHS. Obviously they need to learn to communicate effectively in English but I suspect that the primary requirement is a medical qualification.

Richard English

Well, we haven't published these results yet, though we eventually will. However, from our studies we are finding that lack of communication is by far the most important competence linked to nursing errors. While these are survey and correlational studies, and not pure experiments (nearly impossible to do in this arena), the preponderance of data, from multiple studies using large samples, show that lack of communication is the single most important factor associated with nursing errors. In fact, this was what I was reporting on at the conference I attended in Italy.

You see, if you cannot read nor understand accurately what medication is to be give when or in what dose, you will make an error.

Let me give you an example that I read recently in a nursing journal. The foreign educated physician ordered atropine 0.4 mg QD per os, for bladder spasms. The nurse wasn't familiar with the Latin word "os" (in the U.S. we usually say P.O., and the nurse would have understood that). She looked it up in Tabers Medical Dictionary, though she incorrectly looked up O.S., which means "left eye" ("oculus sinister", in Latin). She gave the patient 4 drops (drops would be abbreviated gtts, not mg) in the left eye, for his bladder spasms. The attending physician came in, noticed one dilated pupil (because of the eye medication), and thought his patient had a neurologic problem, ordering several invasive tests. Fortunately all turned out well because another nurse recognize the mistake before the patient was taken to for tests. However, can you imagine the lawsuit had the patient been injured or died during one of those invasive neurologic tests? Unequal pupil size can be an ominous symptom, and the attending physician was quite right to be concerned.

Now, I agree, the nurse was a numskull to think eye drops would alleviate bladder spasms. Also, the entire mistake here was due to the American educated nurse, and not the foreign educated physician. However, you can see where misunderstandings can arise because of miscommunication.

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Wed Oct 22nd, 2003 at 8:58.]

Kalleh,

The truth emerges: Communication among your professional colleagues requires considerable knowledge not only of English, but of Latin, as well.

"Per os" baffeled me so I consulted Dictionary.com and I'm still baffled.

If "P.O." is the accepted version in America, does it mean "by bone"? or "by mouth -- or some similar opening"? Who decides which of the 24 definitions of "os" is the right one?

I've been told that the Dutch language tells it like it is .... avoiding the Latin and Greek that pervade English. Maybe TheBear can comment on this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
(drops would be abbreviated gtts, not mg)
[This message was edited by Kalleh on Wed Oct 22nd, 2003 at 8:58.]

---

Huh ?

Glaubt es mir - das Geheimnis, um die größte Fruchtbarkeit und den größten Genuß vom Dasein einzuernten, heisst: gefährlich leben.
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

quote:

---

The truth emerges: Communication among your professional colleagues requires considerable knowledge not only of English, but of Latin, as well.
"Per os" baffeled me so I consulted Dictionary.com and I'm still baffled

---

Yes, there is some Latin in nursing, and this example was about Latin. However, most of the communication problems were about nurses not knowing when and how to call a physician, how to document their findings, etc. BTW, Per Os or P.O. is "by mouth", and student nurses learn it very soon in their education.

Bob, the Latin for drops is gtts or guttae (Latin)

And that's a totally different thing. Medicine, like just about every other profession, has its jargon. Knowledge of English will not guarantee knowledge of jargon.

So, if I called up a pnr, did a replay and amendment then issued an MPD for a TOD in YYZ, who (apart from a travel agent) would know what I meant?

Jargon serves a useful purpose in communication between professionals and needs to be taught as a skill. It shouldn't ever be inferred that those from outside the profession will understand it, no matter how good their English.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Bob, the Latin for drops is gtts or _guttae_ (Latin)

---

I can see where this would be a considerable time saver being an entire letter shorter.

You might say that this is just a gtt in the bucket but these things add up until someone gtts the ball and screws up the Latin.


(B. J. Thomas, most famous for "Raingtts Keep Fallin' on my Head," once suffered with gttsy but that's an entirely different story.)

So, what is "gutta percha" a drop of?

(and where did I pick up the notion that one drop was a "gt" and that "gtt" was the plural?)

Oh, you're good, Hab. I don't know the answer to your first question and can't look it up because I am in Wash. DC at a conference.

However, the gtt versus gt you are right about. When I looked it up, it said gtt, guttae, is plural, and gutta (?) (gt) was singular. I have often seen it as gtt or gtts, though. Obviously, that's wrong.

Richard, I see the need for communication in nursing/medicine as much more than understanding the Latin--or as you call it, the jargon. Yes, of course there is jargon in nursing/medicine, or in any field. But, the communication aspect transcends that.

As Richard said, the potentially horrific mix-up reported by Kalleh was a result of miscommunication because of medical jargon, not English. The overseas-educated doctor used the jargon phrase "per os" which was not understood by the American-trained nurse, who would have understood the American equivalent, "P.O." The problem here lies not in English at all, but in the differing jargon.

I think this example of miscommunication went beyond the mere misunderstanding of jargon or Latin, though that surely contributed.

The nurse looked up the words in an English medical dictionary. If she didn't know the word, she should have been able to correctly look it up and to understand the English discussion of it. Further, she had the opportunity of calling the physician for clarity, if she continued to have questions. Shouldn't giving eye drops for bladder spasms have given her cause to check further?

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Fri Oct 24th, 2003 at 21:52.]

The following is posted on my company's first page of our Web site:

"...is a not-for-profit organization whose membership is comprised of the boards..."

Now, Richard informs me that "comprised" used in this manner is grammatically incorrect. Apparently, the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole. According to AHD, however, the opposition to the following use is abating: " The Union is comprised of 50 states." In the 1960s 53% were against this use, but in 1996 only 35% objected. Do you object?

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Sun Mar 7th, 2004 at 20:02.]

The OED says that, in the UK at least, the use of "comprise" as a simile for "compose", "...is to be frowned on..."

I, too, frown on it. The word compose is extant. It is clear and no more complex or difficult to use than comprise. By using "comprise" as a simile for "compose" we are effectively destroying a useful word that has no simile.

"Comprise" means "To be made up of; to consist of" If its meaning becomes that same as "compose", then what word are we going to use when we want to say "it consists of", using just one word?

Richard English

<AOL>What Richard said.</AOL>

I'm definitely with RE on this one.

Every silver lining has a cloud.
Read all about my travels around the world here.
Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog.

Well, our British triumvirate has convinced me. I shall present the problem to our Webmaster. It also gives me ammunition to support the hiring of a Web editor, something our Communications Dept. has wanted for a long time.

I think that this is a case where the battle has already been lost. Comprised is far more frequently used with the of than without. It may be to be frowned on, but the meaning of the word has changed.

Maybe in Cambridge. But in Oxford the meaning is still shown as it ever was.

I intend to fight for it in any event - otherwise we lose a perfectly good word simply to gain a simile.

Richard English

I did get it changed at my office. I sent our executive director a quote from our Style Manual (which does depict the use of "comprised of" as incorrect), and I said that I had received an external comment about it. The change is being instituted. Thanks, Richard!

Whoopee! Fight the good fight!

Richard English

I resurrected this old thread because today I received a request to correct an error on our web site in which our admissions dean had written that our academic program was "comprised of" a number of requirements. It seems that the mother of a prospective student had written to our president that we should have the English Department proofread our entire web site! I changed the "is comprised of" to "comprises." I knew the rule, but had not written the text and had not noticed the error on my own.

I was so sure that Wordcrafters would think that such a stickler was being too prescriptive! Ah, but I was wrong. Here is one case where the rule still stands!

Of course, proofreading the entire web site will take me the rest of my life, but, ah well.

Wordmatic

quote:

Originally posted by wordmatic:
I knew the rule, but had not written the text and had not noticed the error on my own. . . . Here is one case where the rule still stands!

What rule? OneLook gives three definitions of the word:

quote:

Quick definitions (comprise)

# verb: be composed of (Example: "The land he conquered comprised several provinces")
# verb: include or contain; have as a component (Example: "A totally new idea is comprised in this paper")
# verb: form or compose (Example: "These few men comprise his entire army")

Dictionary.com also gives three definitions, an idiomatic usage, and a usage note:

quote:

com·prise
–verb (used with object), -prised, -pris·ing.
1. to include or contain: The Soviet Union comprised several socialist republics.
2. to consist of; be composed of: The advisory board comprises six members.
3. to form or constitute: Seminars and lectures comprised the day's activities.
—Idiom
4. be comprised of, to consist of; be composed of: The sales network is comprised of independent outlets and chain stores.

—Usage note Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, “to include” and “to consist of” (The United States of America comprises 50 states), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning “to form or constitute” (Fifty states comprise the United States of America). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original meanings “to consist of, be composed of”: The United States of America is comprised of 50 states. These later uses are often criticized, but they occur with increasing frequency even in formal speech and writing.

It says comprise is a synonym of include. Under the entry for include there is a discussion of synonyms. It says, "To comprise is to consist of, as the various parts serving to make up the whole: This genus comprises 50 species." It's also correct to say Fifty species comprise this genus.

The OED Online also gives these three definitions, plus a few others, some obsolete.

Tinman

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

Change it to "composed of". This sounds like a flounder to me.

I comprise is a synonym for "composed of" (which it is), then "comprised of" means "composed of of" - and is wrong.

That nearly as many people get "comprise" wrong as misspell the words its and it's, doesn't make it right - just commonly wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by neveu:
Change it to "composed of". This sounds like a flounder to me.

According to the rule (see above all posts except Tinman's Dict.com usage #4), either "composed of" or "comprises" is correct in that sentence.

I was so irked that the student's mother had dictated the form of the correction that I took the alternative, also correct, option. So there!

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I comprise is a synonym for "composed of" (which it is), then "comprised of" means "composed of of" - and is wrong.

That nearly as many people get "comprise" wrong as misspell the words its and it's, doesn't make it right - just commonly wrong.

Right, right. As I said, I knew the rule. I had just missed this particular error among all possible errors on a Web site with over 5,000 pages. I know, that in itself is an abomination.

Wordmatic

The fact is that we use comprise of and comprise to mean the same thing. That's the only verb I can think of that means the same in both active and passive. I think that's pretty cool.

quote:

The fact is that we use comprise of and comprise to mean the same thing. That's the only verb I can think of that means the same in both active and passive. I think that's pretty cool.

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)

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
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)

The situation is actually much more complicated than this. This is from Merriam-Webster :

quote:

1 : to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire -- L. A. White> -- compare IMPLY
2 : GUESS, SURMISE <your letter...allows me to infer that you are as well as ever -- O. W. Holmes died 1935>
3 a : to involve as a normal outcome of thought b : to point out : INDICATE <this doth infer the zeal I had to see him -- Shakespeare> <another survey...infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves -- H. R. Chellman>
4 : SUGGEST, HINT <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>
intransitive verb : to draw inferences <men...have observed, inferred, and reasoned...to all kinds of results -- John Dewey>

Thomas More is the first writer known to have used both infer and imply in their approved senses (1528). He is also the first to have used infer in a sense close in meaning to imply (1533). Both of these uses of infer coexisted without comment until some time around the end of World War I. Since then, senses 3 and 4 of infer have been frequently condemned as an undesirable blurring of a useful distinction. The actual blurring has been done by the commentators. Sense 3, descended from More's use of 1533, does not occur with a personal subject. When objections arose, they were to a use with a personal subject (now sense 4). Since dictionaries did not recognize this use specifically, the objectors assumed that sense 3 was the one they found illogical, even though it had been in respectable use for four centuries. The actual usage condemned was a spoken one never used in logical discourse. At present sense 4 is found in print chiefly in letters to the editor and other informal prose, not in serious intellectual writing. The controversy over sense 4 has apparently reduced the frequency of use of sense 3.

The situation is actually much more complicated than this.

You'll never convince those that need convincing, goofy. That Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage has dedicated almost two and one-half, two-columned pages to the intricacies of the usage of imply and infer means absolutely naught. ("Don't confuse me with the facts," a friend's dad was fond of shouting at us when we disagreed with him.) The interesting thing about this particular shibboleth is that it is not traceable to late 18th grammarians like Bishop Lowth, but only appeared near the end of the First World War. For example:

quote:

We have in our collection more than fifty writers on usage, from 1917 to 1988, who insist that a certain distinction between infer and imply be observed and preserved. Rather than explain, let us illustrate: &c.

"Pigs is pigs. And, grammar is glamor. And, nay the twain shall meet. Choo-choo."

Nobody, on either side of the great chasm, will be convinced, so I leave you all with this etymology: imply > ME implien > Old French emplier 'to enfold' > Latin implico, -are, 'to entangle, unite' (the source of one of my favorite words, implicature) and infer > Latin infero, inferre, 'to bring in, adduce'.

And, 'cause it's in the news: intend > ME entenden > OFr entendre > Latin intendo, intendere, 'to stretch out, extend' (cf. extendo, extendere, 'to stretch out, extend').

As has frequently been observed on this board, English is a living and changing language. 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. That's nearly 90 years and maybe long enough for the shift to be accepted as permanent, I suggest.

Since there are plenty of other words that mean "imply", there seems no need to continue to use "infer" for the job.

Hmm, I guess it bears repreating.

Thomas More is the first writer known to have used both infer and imply in their approved senses (1528). He is also the first to have used infer in a sense close in meaning to imply (1533). Both of these uses of infer coexisted without comment until some time around the end of World War I.

I don't see anything difficult in this passage. Do you? It seems to say that St Sir Thomas More was the first to use imply and infer in their modern approved senses. And, he was the first to use infer to mean something a lot like imply. Many continue to use infer in this way, down to the First World War, when grammar mavens began to rumble, down until today, when not so many are rumbling. It seems pretty obvious that the meaning has not changed, but that some (self-appointed guardians of the language) wish it would ...

It should also be noted that the following is quoted from a different book (though both were published by merriam-Webster's) than the one above.

We have in our collection more than fifty writers on usage, from 1917 to 1988, who insist that a certain distinction between infer and imply be observed and preserved.