help with meaning

furrykef   Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:30 pm GMT
<< Interesting. You'd use "to" with rename, but not with "reanimate". Where is the logic, the system? >>

I don't see any inconsistency here. "Rename X to Y" and "reanimate X to life" are very different. For instance, the former doesn't have the redundancy that the latter does. You could argue that the "to" is unnecessary, but that's different from arguing that the entire "to Y" part is unnecessary. The "to Y" part contains essential information; the "to life" part of the latter sentence does not.

<< Really? Should I look to Microsoft again?

LOL! >>

What was wrong with my Microsoft example? You wanted native speakers who used a certain construction, and I showed you. I only chose Microsoft because they obviously write a lot about basic computer stuff, including renaming things. Anyway, as for the sentence with "fit", you also have failed to point out what was wrong with the sentence in the first place, despite having repeatedly been asked.

I also wonder where you get the idea that you can tell native speakers how they do and don't speak... you can argue with us about how we should say things, but not with how we do say things.

<< I agree with Pos, there seems to be no logic in your argument regarding "rename". >>

Although I don't see anywhere that my argument is illogical, nor do I see a serious rebuttal, I must point out that language is seldom logical. The bottom line is that "rename to" sounds fine to me, and to many other native speakers.

- Kef
Dolly   Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:29 pm GMT
<The "to Y" part contains essential information; the "to life" part of the latter sentence does not. >

restore life
restore to its former glory

Why doesn't the first one need "to"?
Guest   Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:32 pm GMT
<<I also wonder where you get the idea that you can tell native speakers how they do and don't speak... you can argue with us about how we should say things, but not with how we do say things. >>

Why ever not? Is your usage sacred? Have you ever hear comments such as "I think French/Chinese/Russian says this in a better, more succint way"?
M56   Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:34 pm GMT
<The bottom line is that "rename to" sounds fine to me, and to many other native speakers. >

In all registers/genre/text types?
M56   Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:51 pm GMT
Hey, Pos, give it up. I guess human users of English must be getting as stupid as computers if they need the "to" after "rename". As said above, PCs need all the help they can get in deciphering instructions. They need that "to" here:

<Per 17 Sep 2003 telecon, decided to rename Message Pattern to Message Exchange Pattern. >

For centuries, most of us haven't needed the "to" to help us decipher the new name in "rename" sentences, now, it seems some natives do need that extra help.

What's the world coming to to to to...


LOL!
furrykef   Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:31 pm GMT
<< restore life
restore to its former glory

Why doesn't the first one need "to"? >>

I don't see where you're getting this from...

<< Why ever not? Is your usage sacred? Have you ever hear comments such as "I think French/Chinese/Russian says this in a better, more succint way"? >>

I think you misunderstood me. Pos was saying that native speakers of English don't use a certain construction, while several native speakers, myself included, were saying that he was wrong and we do use it. How we *should* speak is irrelevant; we're talking about how we *do* speak. He can't tell native speakers how they speak, because natives obviously will know that better than he does -- whether or not he's a native himself. (Even if he is, he could be unfamiliar with other dialects, for instance.)

<< I guess human users of English must be getting as stupid as computers if they need the "to" after "rename". >>

Languages change. It's what they do... if you don't like it, perhaps you'd prefer to speak in Classical Latin? :)

- Kef
Divvy   Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:38 pm GMT
<Languages change.>

Sound like it's the speakers who change there, Kef. Maybe speakers are getting less able to interpret messages unless they are "spelt out" for them. It happens in American comedies, and in many Hollywood films. It seems American audiences need things spelling out.
M56   Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:42 pm GMT
<Languages change. It's what they do... if you don't like it, perhaps you'd prefer to speak in Classical Latin? :) >

Maybe you'd like to lose the implicitness we have in English?
beneficii   Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:53 pm GMT
Dolly,

<<Are these OK, then?

The tailor fit the trousers by shortening them.

Specialized training fit her for the job.>>

"I fitted the ship with all the new features, so finally it fit the definition of the greatest ship in the world!"

"You hung the shoes by their shoelaces on the sacred power line, so you'll be hanged!"

etc.
beneficii   Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:55 pm GMT
Divvy,

>>It seems American audiences need things spelling out.<<

Um. This reminds me of what deaf people like to say, "You make me so frustrating!"
beneficii   Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:57 pm GMT
M56 (aka Pos),

Boy, no wonder your English is still sub-par; you spend too much time asking why? as opposed to just picking up the language as you go. I mean, they just like to use it. I know such an explanation is unacceptable to Your Highness, but that's just the way things are.

Boo hoo.
Guest   Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:57 pm GMT
<Um. This reminds me of what deaf people like to say, "You make me so frustrating!" >

Note that you provided post 69. Did you enjoy it?
Pos   Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:59 pm GMT
<I know such an explanation is unacceptable to Your Highness, but that's just the way things are. >

When you provide a good explanation Beneficii (aka Kef), please post it.
beneficii   Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:47 pm GMT
Guest,

>><Um. This reminds me of what deaf people like to say, "You make me so frustrating!" >

Note that you provided post 69. Did you enjoy it?<<

Huh?

Pos (aka M56),

>><I know such an explanation is unacceptable to Your Highness, but that's just the way things are. >

When you provide a good explanation Beneficii (aka Kef), please post it.<<

You can get Josh Lalonde in here, and he would say that Kef and I never had the same IP address. You, on the other hand,...

As for explanation, you missed my point. There really isn't any super logical explanation that would take into account every objection into why that form is used.

The only explanation I can give is that this form is used by native speakers, simply put, for the reasons of precision and clarity that I had given above. As much as we want to get rid of native speaker dominance over things or say that native speakers of English are now inherently inferior to computers because they wanted to add 'to' in this case to help parse the phrase, things are the way they are.

My main objection to your comments was not that it might be seen as illogical to use that form as opposed to some other form, but rather that you had initially marked that usage as _non-native_ and then tried to use it as proof that I was not a native speaker of English, which is not true. I objected to that inaccuracy, just as I objected to "it fit" being considered a non-native error. Of course, you move from one thing to the other, hoping that your previous mistake would have gone unnoticed. Trust me, it hasn't.
Guest   Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:41 pm GMT
You are being trolled. Pos/M56 are the same person, so I wouldn't take anything they say seriously. lol