Also, you could infer "x.expanding..." alone to mean "x, *by*
expanding..." or "*whether *x *is* expanding...",
Only by adding words that aren't there.
I think what Jacob is trying to say is that an ‘-ing’ form does not
have a clearly defined semantics in English. Depending on the
construction, the meaning can differ. This creates potential
confusion, as many people have pointed out earlier. Taking
It's a bad example, because the guidelines say to prefer “ed” unless it
would be ungrammatical. In this case,
is clearly grammatical, so you never end up here in the first place
it is clear that guidelines intend an irrealis reading ‘if x were
expanded, it would be’ or a resultative reading ‘x,after it has been
expanded’. However, this is NOT a very typical reading associated with
-ing forms. In particular, other, more conventional readings include:
- converb construction (x is standing there, expanding)
- atelic action/focus on a subprocess (x is expanding)
- statement about a quality (x is expanding = x is of a quality that it is an expanding one)
- question, by modifying prosody: (is x ) expanding?
I believe that it is somewhat unfortunate that the guidelines
(correctly, IMO) promote verbosity over luck of clarity and then at
the same time introduce semantically obscure or outright weird notions
based on the ‘-ing’ forms. Something like ‘x.havingAdded(e)’
communicates the intent much better than ‘x.adding(e)’ (which reads
like a notification), and yet more clear is ‘concatenate(x, e)’.
The problem is that if you use x.add/x.havingAdded as a standard
convention, you end up with gobs of methods that start with “having,”
which tends to break up the association between the mutating and
non-mutating forms. We think that association is important.
So going back to ‘adding words that aren’t there’ — by promoting this
guideline rule, you are already doing this.
(“this” without an antecedent; tsk, tsk --- yes, I'm well aware that
correcting a linguist's writing is very likely to backfire, but I
But I digress. As a linguist, I am not very fond of this aspect of the
guidelines, but if they are applied consistently, people will get used
to them. Just don’t make a mistake and believe they are ‘grammatical’
— they are not,
That's quite a claim. I previously understood you to be saying that the
forms weren't typical usage, but are you really saying that “Give me the
list of all students, removing those who got As” is ungrammatical?
they are creating new conventional readings which are fairly untypical
under normal language use.
Take out the "creating new" part and that is a completely separate issue
from grammaticality. I would be very surprised if we were actually
inventing new grammar here, especially because these guidelines were
checked by a (different) linguist. If you really mean that, I'll try to
put the two of you in touch so you can duke it out and we'll get a
on Wed Feb 17 2016, Taras Zakharko <taras.zakharko-AT-uzh.ch> wrote:
On 18 Feb 2016, at 06:44, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution <email@example.com> wrote:
so there might be some cases where it's easy to confuse Bool
properties with non-Bools.
I don't get it; sorry...
swift-evolution mailing list