User:Fowler&fowler/Real-time experiment for FAC Talk page


 * From Samuel Johnson's early life FAC review.


 * Post3 by Fowler&fowler&mdash;Further comments on syntax and diction in remainder of "Parents" section:

I am working with this version of the FAC page. I have already commented on Sentences 1 through 4 in this section (on the FAC talk page). Here are most of the remaining sentences in that section.


 * (Sentence 5):"William was the first Johnson to move to Lichfield, and died shortly after the move."
 * One refers to "the move" (i.e. the act of relocation) if some details of the relocation have been provided.  So, for example, we can say, "On June 19, William Johnson moved from the village of Cranleigh in Straffordshire to the nearby town of Lichfield; he, however, expired shortly after the move."  When no such details are provided, one says, "... and died shortly after moving there."
 * What do we mean by the "first Johnson?" Had no person with last name "Johnson" moved to Lichfield?  If the latter is intended, then is there a citation for this?  Or do we really mean, William was the first person in his family (or extended family) to move from rural Straffordshire to Lichfield?  In other words (especially in an encyclopedia), we should be saying: "William was the first person in his (extended) family to move to Lichfield and died short after moving there."


 * (Sentence 6)"Michael Johnson, after leaving his apprenticeship at 24, followed in his father's footsteps and became a book seller on Sadler Street, Lichfield."
 * Wasn't being an apprentice to a bookseller already a case of following in his father's footsteps?
 * (Sentence 7):"At the age of 29, Michael Johnson was engaged to be married to a local woman, Mary Neild, but she cancelled the engagement."
 * "was" is incorrect when you are describing a time period such as the "age of 29." It should be "At the age of 29 Michael Johnson became engaged to be married to a Lichfield woman, Mary Neild, who, however, later canceled the engagement."

Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Sentence 8): "Twenty years later, in 1706, he married Sarah Ford. She came from a middle-class milling and farming family ..."
 * "Middle-class" is not an expression that either was used at that time or is generally applied to that time. Its first occurrence is 1745 and it is generally not applied to the UK before the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars (1815).
 * "... and was twelve years his junior, daughter of Cornelius Ford." has faulty syntax. Simpler to say, "Twenty years later, in 1706, he married Sarah Ford, who was twelve years his junior and daughter of a local miller and farmer, Cornelius Ford."
 * (Sentence 9): "Although both families had money, Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty."
 * "Both families" here is vague (since the two people mentioned are the two women he became engaged to);
 * Similarly, "had money" is vague as well (i.e. in an encyclopedia). Better to say, "Although neither of his parents' families was considered poor by the standards of the day, Samuel Johnson often claimed (that) he grew up in poverty."
 * (Sentence 10): "It is uncertain what happened between the marriage of his parents and Samuel's birth three years later to provoke a decline in the family's fortunes, but Michael Johnson quickly became overwhelmed with debt from which he was never able to recover."
 * The (grammatical) subject of the sentence changes from Samuel J. in the first half to Michael J. in the second.
 * "marriage of his parents" Although most people will understand what is meant, it is more correct to say, "wedding of his parents"
 * "provoke" usually means something more deliberate (i.e. to excite or stir up, to incite, to spur on); it can be used to mean "give rise to" or "prompt," but that use is usually restricted to physical phenomena. (An example is, "A streptococcus was indicated as the trigger that provokes acute rheumatic fever.")  Best to say, "..., Samuel's birth to cause a reversal of family fortune ..."


 * Note after reading Fowler's third set of comments, I can't see one concern that isn't already contradicted because the passage is either part of standard speech or common sense. Thus, I will be ignoring the concerns as they lack merit. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to give an example - "'Middle-class' is not an expression that either was used at that time or is generally applied to that time." This is quite untrue. The above user has probably never read a book by either a Marxist or New Historical bent critic, let alone the thousands of others who aren't in either field. Lane makes it very clear that they were middle-class and even states "middle-class". These, and other such comments, show a lack of understanding how biographies work, how criticism works, and show a disregard for what he is actually reviewing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * True, I haven't read these critics, but I have read some Marx and some history. Note that we are saying "She came from a middle-class milling and farming family ..." and referring the period before 1706.  Here are a few references:
 * 1) Quote from book: "What was the English Middle Class? The provincial middle class took shape during the turbulent decades of late-eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries."
 * 2) Quote:"The term middle classes began to be used more frequently in social and political debate. So too were working class and classes."
 * 3) OED First use of expression, "Middle class" 1745 J. BRADSHAW Scheme to prevent running Irish Wools to France  "The lower and middle Class of their People appear'd at that time, well dress'd in ..."
 * 4)Daniel Defoe, writing after the time we are referring to, distinguished six classes: "1. The great, who live profusely, 2. The rich, who live plentifully, 3. The middle sort, who live well., 4. The working trades, who labour hard, but feel no want, 5. The country people, farmers etc., who fare indifferently, 6. The poor, who fare hard."  In which class would Defoe put a bookseller or miller/farmer?  Doesn't seem to be the "middle sort."
 * 5)Finally Marx and Engels, themselves, usually reserve the term "middle-class" for the industrial age.  However, they sometimes do use "manufacturing middle classes" to describe the mercantile guilds of early capitalism.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For an example that Fowler doesn't understand grammar - "The (grammatical) subject of the sentence changes from Samuel J. in the first half to Michael J. in the second." Actually, the subject of the sentence is "It" and part of "what happened" or just "happened". This is something -very- obvious and the fact that he believed that Johnson was the subject of the first clause shows that he does not understand what a "subject" actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * True, I made a mistake, but pointing it out doesn't make your sentence any less ambiguous. The two sentences are: "... Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty.  It is uncertain what happened between the marriage of his parents and Samuel's birth three years later to provoke a decline in the family's fortunes, but Michael Johnson quickly became overwhelmed with debt from which he was never able to recover."  What do we mean by "his?" If we are using "his" to refer to Samuel Johnson already mentioned in the previous sentence, then why are we saying "Samuel's birth" next and not "his birth?"  In other words, it is much less ambiguous if we say, "... Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty.  It is uncertain what happened between the wedding of his parents and his own birth three years later to cause a reversal of family fortune, but his father quickly became overwhelmed with irreversible debt." Note too that you've responded to only one or two points; there are several others.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Middle class simply means "skilled working class" - merchants, skilled laborers, lawyers, etc. It comes from a source. The basic definition is standard English knowledge. The source only verifies its legitimacy of use. The first should have kept you from claiming that it was inappropriate, and the second verifying that. I don't need to respond to -any- of your points because they are all equally absurd. "your sentence any less ambiguous" It really does. "It" is right at the beginning. There is no hidden subject. The first sentence states that there was an event, the second sentence states a response to that event. This is obvious from context. Are you even a native English speaker? I highly suspect that you are not, especially with your interest in Indian articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What does interest in the history of early-modern- and colonial India have anything to do with not being a native English speaker?  There are many people in the former group: Christopher Bayly, Eric Stokes, Judith Brown, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Barbara Metcalf, Muzaffar Alam, ..., are just a few. Some are native English speakers and some are likely not, but all write superb English prose.  Besides South Asia itself has many native (or near-native) English speakers, a direct result of over 200 years of British rule.  The novels of Salman Rushdie and Arundhati Roy are but two examples of the  burgeoning  corpus of Indian English literature.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You've used incorrect terminology for grammar, switched things around, made staunch claims about what is proper when there is no strict rule, and your strong interest in Indian articles and terminology suggests that you speak Hindi or some related language. Now, we all know that grammar in England is different than Grammar in the United States. It is even more so between Indian grammar and the rest because of the influence of native languages. It would explain why you are so adamant about things that are incorrect or not important. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)