Which preposition do you use after "commentary"? The presenter on the radio station I'm listening to has just said "we have commentary on the Malaysian Grand Prix", which is what I'd say. Yet increasingly often I've heard things like "commentary of the Grand Prix", which really grates on my ears for some reason.
I think I'm right in saying that a complement with "of" is generally used when the corresponding verb takes a direct object without a preposition: e.g. "to broadcast the Grand Prix"/"a broadcast of the Grand Prix". If the verb takes a prepositional complement then normally the corresponding noun takes the same one: "to commentate on the Grand Prix"/"a commentary on the Grand Prix".
Originally posted by Kalleh: I'd say "commentary on." There are 5,430 Google hits on "on" and 18.7 million on "of" so I think you are right, Guy.
If those were the figures then they would overwhelmingly support "of". The figures I get are 13.1 million for "commentary on" and 2.21 million for "commentary of".
I think it's a bit misleading to rely on search results as a guide, though. For one thing, most of the search results (if the first few pages are anything to go by) are using "commentary" in the older sense of "a series of annotations on a text" (e.g. "Biblical commentary"), rather than in the newer sense of "a broadcast description of a sports match or other event".
Also, it's perfectly acceptable to use "of" when referring to the author of the commentary rather than the thing being commented on. The first hit I get for "commentary of" begins "This page contains the 1928 commentary of Dr. Marc Edmund Jones...". Such results are bound to inflate the figures for "of".
I'm surprised at Geoff's suggestion of "regarding", though. I can find hits like "a commentary regarding Einstein's equation" but if a radio presenter said "we have commentary regarding the Grand Prix" it would sound ridiculously pompous to me. Has anyone else heard it?
I don't see what's odd about corpora for different kinds of English, so you can research specific features of the kind of English you're interested in.
Originally posted by Kalleh: Yes, Guy. To me, English is English.
I still don't quite understand your comment. Is it the whole idea of corpus-based linguistics you find odd? Or merely the idea of separate corpora for British and American English?
Text corpora are put together for research purposes, and as goofy says one might very well wish to research aspects of a specific variety of English. I believe there are some corpora which are international, although I don't know the details.
Off-topic a bit, but last night Sue and I watched the movie, "Made in Dagenham," and found it odd that while we had little or no trouble understanding the men, neither of us could understand most of what the women said. Any ideas about why?
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -J. Krishnamurti
Huh? You're the one going on about the differences between UK English and US English. If English is English, how can I tell that somebody is from the US South or Yorkshire?
I've not seen the movie, but I understand it is about a strike for equal pay with men by the women car workers. I would guess that the women are all played as working-class cockneys, so might have fairly impenetrable accents to an American. Were most of the men in management? If so, they'd probably have less broad accents.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Yes, arnie, that was part of it, but even the working class men we could understand, but not the women from the same social group. It really make me think English is English only if you're in the particular group speaking it.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -J. Krishnamurti
Well, maybe it's not a linguistic distinction, but I see a difference between discussing UK and US language differences (do I really "go on" about it?) on Wordcraft, a word/language discussion board...and special dictionaries based on the differences. However, judging by the reaction, I am wrong. Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last time.
Originally posted by Kalleh: Well, maybe it's not a linguistic distinction, but I see a difference between discussing UK and US language differences (do I really "go on" about it?) on Wordcraft, a word/language discussion board...and special dictionaries based on the differences.
Forgive me, but I really don't understand what you're getting at here. A corpus isn't the same thing as a dictionary, and in any case there have always been separate dictionaries of British English and American English. What exactly strikes you as so unusual?
Perhaps "go on" was hyperbole; I apologize. But as Guy says: a corpus is not a dictionary. It's a collection of texts. And there are regional corpora just as there are regional dictionaries. I even have a dictionary of Canadian English in my library.
[Edit: corrected misspelling.]This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,
Welcome, Don. I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not so I'll assume not. My post was a little dismissive, I admit. Clearly I had not understood what a corpus is, and therefore I didn't want to continue talking about it. It's hard to argue about something you know very little about ("corpus," that is).
I will admit I was wrong, though. I have enjoyed talking about the differences between UK/US English so I was wrong to say "English is English." Is that better?
Originally posted by Kalleh: Clearly I had not understood what a corpus is, and therefore I didn't want to continue talking about it.
I gave you a link to the Wikipedia article on corpus linguistics earlier in the thread, Kalleh. Did you read it? On reflection, though, I think this article would have been more appropriate:
"In linguistics, a corpus (plural corpora) or text corpus is a large and structured set of texts (now usually electronically stored and processed). They are used to do statistical analysis and hypothesis testing, checking occurrences or validating linguistic rules on a specific universe."
I've never done corpus-based research myself, but they're very useful for people trying to create computational models of language, as well as for analysing usage patterns.
quote:
I have enjoyed talking about the differences between UK/US English so I was wrong to say "English is English." Is that better?
Well you weren't right or wrong - that's a matter of opinion. I would have thought, though, that if you're interesting in analysing patterns of usage, the distinction between UK and US English would be of some relevance.
Kalleh- I certainly was not being sarcastic (wouldn't that be a fine introduction ). I have to say that I did not understand Proofreader, though. I need to spend more time getting to know the personalities here.
Thank you, Kalleh, Bob and Proofreader, for the welcoming words. I hope that few people saw my first post before I edited it. My face is still red. I was sure that what Proofreader was responding to was my ridiculous error: while Kalleh is undoubtedly gracious, as frequently demonstrated herein, I have no personal knowledge that she is graceful; although I am sure she is.
I believe I will keep my head down for a while now.
I gave you a link to the Wikipedia article on corpus linguistics earlier in the thread, Kalleh. Did you read it?
Yes, I did. I'll read your new link, though.
quote:
Well you weren't right or wrong - that's a matter of opinion. I would have thought, though, that if you're interesting in analysing patterns of usage, the distinction between UK and US English would be of some relevance.
Well, it was zmj who pointed that that I "go on about" English/American differences, and that made me think that my comment was wrong. English isn't English. There are many dialects and forms of it, and clearly I find it interesting. Think of my discussion of "at university" or "in hospital." I must have just been crabby when I wrote that.
quote:
while Kalleh is undoubtedly gracious, as frequently demonstrated herein, I have no personal knowledge that she is graceful; although I am sure she is.
Oh, dear, no! About 10 years ago a friend and I took tap dancing lessons from "Reggie the Hoofer" (not kidding!). Unfortunately, Reggie, with his dreadlocks, would take me to the front to show the class how not to dance. It was fun though!
). I have to say that I did not understand Proofreader, though. I need to spend more time getting to know the personalities here.
It was fun though!