Tweet
Right, here we are then!
This is an issue on which I need as many as possible to comment! We need to settle a very specific matter. sorting under the big Leander war.
The facts of the case are these:
In Frank Leanders first post, he wrote, in an effort to describe what could have had caused the differences inbetween the signatures he was looking at:
"The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things."
In a later post, he worded the same matter:
"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".
Inbetween these posts, I had stated that Leander obviously was of the opinion that there could have been many explanations to the differences.
When Leander in his later post used te word "many" to describe the amount of possible explanations to the changes, Ben tells me that this would have been because I had "put words in his mouth". He also tells me that Leanders first description does not tally with the word "many". He goes on to claim that Leander by this switch of vocabulary shows us that he is not circumspect, and he says - on the whole - that the reason for Leanders changed phrasing would have been that he had grown tired of me, and needed to fob me off.
Once again, this is quote one:
"The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things."
In it, Leander listed at the very least five possible explanations to the differences, elaborating on three:
1: The age of the writer
2. The surrounding circumstances as available writing space
3. The function of the pen
..and to that he added
4: Similar things
...using the word "thingS, that is plural.
That implies that he has exemplified three different things, and then added that there may have been other things involved too, of similar character. And the way I read him, he leaves the possible number of explanations open.
Quote number two again:
"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".
Here, Leander does not exemplify - he instead chooses to use the word "many".
According to Ben, these two phrasings go to show that Leander has changed his mind, and he identifies the probable reason as me "putting words in" Leanders mouth.
My suggestion is that the two phrasings describe the exact same thing: That there were many possible explanations to the differences.
The choice of the word "many" is what mostly seems to annoy Ben. But "many" is by far the most common word used in Sweden to describe a multitude. The Swedish word, by the way, is built on the same material as it´s English equivalent: many - många.
Are there any one-word synonyms that he could instead have used? Yes, one springs to mind, the Swedish equivalent of the British "numerous": "åtskilliga". But this is a word that is very rarely used, and it mostly comes to use in more formal texts. It is seldom used in spoken language.
Apart from this, there are constructions of two or more words that can mean "many": En hel hop, en samling, en ansenlig skara. But none of these are used even remotely as many times as the extremely common "många".
A googling of the two words "många" and "åtskilliga", gives at hand that "åtskilliga" occurs 414 000 times, whereas "många" gets a number of 27 900 000.
What I need you to do is to chime in, all of you if possible, and tell me if you are of the meaning that Leander gave messages that swore against each other as quoted. Did he prove himself not circumspect? Can you identify any will on Leanders behalf to fob me off by adjusting to my wishes here?
Please refrain from the other issues of the Leander analysis, and focus on this issue only!
What is your meaning? Tell me, please!
the best,
Fisherman
who plans to eat out tonight - but I will return to have a look at your verdict later this evening. And please don´t forget to pass that verdict!
This is an issue on which I need as many as possible to comment! We need to settle a very specific matter. sorting under the big Leander war.
The facts of the case are these:
In Frank Leanders first post, he wrote, in an effort to describe what could have had caused the differences inbetween the signatures he was looking at:
"The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things."
In a later post, he worded the same matter:
"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".
Inbetween these posts, I had stated that Leander obviously was of the opinion that there could have been many explanations to the differences.
When Leander in his later post used te word "many" to describe the amount of possible explanations to the changes, Ben tells me that this would have been because I had "put words in his mouth". He also tells me that Leanders first description does not tally with the word "many". He goes on to claim that Leander by this switch of vocabulary shows us that he is not circumspect, and he says - on the whole - that the reason for Leanders changed phrasing would have been that he had grown tired of me, and needed to fob me off.
Once again, this is quote one:
"The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things."
In it, Leander listed at the very least five possible explanations to the differences, elaborating on three:
1: The age of the writer
2. The surrounding circumstances as available writing space
3. The function of the pen
..and to that he added
4: Similar things
...using the word "thingS, that is plural.
That implies that he has exemplified three different things, and then added that there may have been other things involved too, of similar character. And the way I read him, he leaves the possible number of explanations open.
Quote number two again:
"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".
Here, Leander does not exemplify - he instead chooses to use the word "many".
According to Ben, these two phrasings go to show that Leander has changed his mind, and he identifies the probable reason as me "putting words in" Leanders mouth.
My suggestion is that the two phrasings describe the exact same thing: That there were many possible explanations to the differences.
The choice of the word "many" is what mostly seems to annoy Ben. But "many" is by far the most common word used in Sweden to describe a multitude. The Swedish word, by the way, is built on the same material as it´s English equivalent: many - många.
Are there any one-word synonyms that he could instead have used? Yes, one springs to mind, the Swedish equivalent of the British "numerous": "åtskilliga". But this is a word that is very rarely used, and it mostly comes to use in more formal texts. It is seldom used in spoken language.
Apart from this, there are constructions of two or more words that can mean "many": En hel hop, en samling, en ansenlig skara. But none of these are used even remotely as many times as the extremely common "många".
A googling of the two words "många" and "åtskilliga", gives at hand that "åtskilliga" occurs 414 000 times, whereas "många" gets a number of 27 900 000.
What I need you to do is to chime in, all of you if possible, and tell me if you are of the meaning that Leander gave messages that swore against each other as quoted. Did he prove himself not circumspect? Can you identify any will on Leanders behalf to fob me off by adjusting to my wishes here?
Please refrain from the other issues of the Leander analysis, and focus on this issue only!
What is your meaning? Tell me, please!
the best,
Fisherman
who plans to eat out tonight - but I will return to have a look at your verdict later this evening. And please don´t forget to pass that verdict!
Comment