From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Berman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: please make line-move-visual nil Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 16:21:14 +0200 Message-ID: <877i0ifnvp.fsf@escher.local.home> References: <4A0C402C.7060804@slugfest.demon.co.uk> <20090514181712.GA2413@muc.de> <7C757F28-A6B2-48FB-A8AC-CF2E1728FA68@gmail.com> <87bppug6gc.fsf@escher.local.home> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1242397306 23431 80.91.229.12 (15 May 2009 14:21:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 14:21:46 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 15 16:21:39 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1M4yI7-0002ON-E7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 16:21:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39264 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M4yI6-00074y-EO for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 10:21:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M4yI1-00074P-1j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 10:21:33 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M4yHw-000735-K9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 10:21:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36281 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M4yHw-000732-Cu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 10:21:28 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:47101 helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M4yHv-0001He-T7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 10:21:28 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1M4yHt-0001Jb-IB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 14:21:25 +0000 Original-Received: from i59f56b67.versanet.de ([89.245.107.103]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 14:21:25 +0000 Original-Received: from stephen.berman by i59f56b67.versanet.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 15 May 2009 14:21:25 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 49 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: i59f56b67.versanet.de User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.93 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:110892 Archived-At: On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:58:02 +0900 Miles Bader wrote: > Stephen Berman writes: >> One not too rarely encountered (and to me fairly acceptable) >> avoid+infinitive construction is when `avoid' is passivized with an >> expletive subject: "It should be avoided to ...". FWIW Google > > To my ear, "avoid to" is clearly incorrect (and I think my ear is pretty > good). I agree with you (I'm a native speaker of American English) about "avoid to", i.e. in the active voice (and with an animate subject), but do you think the construction I referred to is just as "clearly incorrect" (I would rather say (un)acceptable)? I think there's a pretty clear difference in acceptability. There are at least a few other verbs that pattern with `avoid' in this respect. For example, these are all "clearly incorrect": (1) We avoided/recommended/suggested/discouraged to arrive early. in contrast to these, which are "correct" English: (2) We avoided/recommended/suggested/discouraged arriving early. When the main verb is passivized, an expletive subject is used, and the complements are reversed, I think there's a similar contrast. That is, the following are completely unacceptable[1]: (3) It should be avoided/ is highly recommended/ is strongly suggested/discouraged arriving early. while I think these sound more or less fine (`avoided' less than the others, but not completely bad, and clearly contrasting with (3)): (4) It should be avoided/ is highly recommended/ is strongly suggested/discouraged to arrive early. Do you find no acceptability contrast between (3) and (4)? Steve Berman Footnotes: [1] There is a marginal reading of (3) where the subject `it' refers to `arriving early' (it's marginal in (3) because as normally written it is set off by a comma). But on the reading I mean `it' is an expletive, non-referential.