Thread:Gsbr/@comment-4655954-20150507124430/@comment-4655954-20150516070902

Gsbr wrote: Your own words prove you wrong- "dropped infers that something fell from something's grip."

No, they actually do not. You are misunderstanding the use of two distinctly different words. The word “fall” being a part of the word "Drop"'s definition does not translate to equivalency. Fall is still a generic reference to an action that does not denote an specific context. Drop is more specific and more apt to the context involving Zara.

“When something is dropped, it falls. We are describing what happened to Zara; she fell. It is a fact that she fell, it is not incorrect to say she fell. Yes, "dropped" is a more specific word. Yes, "fall" doesn't always refer to something moving downwards. But within the context of the article, it has already been established that Zara was taken by a flying animal. By already knowing she's above the group, the only rational way to interpret "fall" is her descending towards a lower place. And that's exactly what happened.”

Again you are imposing your interpretation and insisting that it is how every single reader will see it. Even if that is the case - that fact that there is a better and more accurate word to depict the event means it is more in the vain or quality and accuracy to use that word rather than one that is not.

“Then why do adverbs like "accidentally" and "unintentionally" exist in the first place?”

They exist for added clarity.

“Why do we feel the need to use those adverbs when describing something we didn't do on purpose, if simply saying what we didn't wouldn't prove our actions were deliberate?“

Why do you constantly make blanket statements? I have dropped things in the past - accidentally. When asked - "What Happened?" my typical reply is - "I dropped it" The person whom I am replying to does not then immediately assume I dropped the item on purpose. Adverbs are nice but their existence does not imply that they are always needed and that certain words become accusations of conscious intent if they are not present. You insistence that this is so is entirely incorrect.

“You are looking at the word too literally.” No, actually I am not. Words have meanings and applications. I understand those applications and those meanings and have a firm grasp on how to properly use the English language in its written form.

“You are only considering the definition of the word and not how the word appears in the context of a sentence.” The Irony in this statement is that it is actually you who is not understanding context. You are struggling with discrepancy between your personal interpretation of a sentence using your choice of a generic word, "fall", and your interpretation of another sentence using the word "drop" and you incorrect interpretation of the implications of the word "Drop".

You believe that without a clear and concise adverb to qualify the meaning of the word "Drop" in a sentence that drop then, by default, implies conscious intent to drop something. This belief of yours is wrong, simple as that.

“When we read about an action being performed, ith just nouns and verbs, we normally assume it was done intentionally.”

No, we don't. That is not a norm. You are confusing your personal perception with reality and trying to impose it on the general population. Your assumption that "we all interpret things like this" and "we all interpret things like that" is entirely unfounded and baseless. This belief of yours has no actual solidity in the actual established and documented mechanics of the English Language. I know you like to refer back to that article you found – but that article is not an authority on the subject, and even when we take into consideration what is discussed in that link that you provided in your previous post the fact remains that your link was addressing cognitive behavior and it was not discussing proper grammar or any other actual tenant of the English language in of its self.

“We rarely need deliberate actions spelled out of for us (unless we're in a court of law), but we do need unintentional actions spelled out for us. Case in point:

”

Again you use a site that is not an authority on the English language, but is also not even discussing the mechanics of written English. There are actual sites that will teach how the spoken and written word functions in the English language. Mine linking and quoting is a fallacious attempt at trying to make point.

“Notice how the majority of the actions being described lack adverbs. The reader automatically assumes the actions were deliberate.” Another attempt at false equivocacy. Without context the content in your link is just a very bare bone description of events, no value of blame can be placed. If someone runs in and says "I shot someone" it is not immediately clear what the intent was or how it came about. And yes, most people, will first ask questions, such as - When? Where? How? and Why? Because immediately most people know that without any further context there is no way to know if it was deliberate or not. It is possible to accidently shoot someone it happens in real life all the time.

“But at two points, the adverb "unintentionally" is placed in front of a verb to inform the reader the action was not deliberate.”

Even if the adverb had not been present - the word shoot, in of its self, does not mean it was deliberate or anything else other than its actual definition. Adverbs are useful to give clarity, but without them there is no default position as you seem to believe. Without them - NO, the reader does not normally just assume that there’s a default position such as - "Oh, this individual must have did this on purpose"- The reader will first look for context to make sense of what they are reading - if they cannot find it then no real meaning can be assigned to the events until clarification is given.

“It wouldn't have been incorrect if the adverb wasn't used, but readers would have otherwise assumed the actions were intentional, hence why it was added.”

No, your personal experience in reading - in which you assign default values of blame to verbs is not universal. And again, addressing your previous link from your previous post, cognitive associations provoked by phrasing does not dictate whether the phrasing is correct or not. The rules do not bend simply to placate those discrepancies. Without the adverbs, contrary to your belief, readers would simply not be able to assign any blame for the actions depicted until clarity was given - because the default position is, actually, neutrality.

"A generic word could not technically mean anything when placed in a specific context.”

There is no context here. I'm noticing a pattern in which you continuously confuse your assumptions with facts. We don't know what happened - the sentence in question is based off of a heavily edited and vague short TV Spot. "Common sense" and whatever you may think is the most obvious sequence of events is subjective to you and your interpretation of events represent your personal perception of what is being seen. However, because what is being scene is a broken up preview of an incomplete scene - your assumptions of what happened and thus the context that you think is there is entirely without merit until the actual scene is made public - via seeing the movie.

Again we go back to the neutrality of words when they are not given a specific context. Drop is neutral here. Is doesn't mean that the pteranodon dropped Zara accidentally or intentionally- it's neutral and here it simply depicts what happened - that it dropped Zara. Why? How? When? What? etc is not known. You again, because of an assumption, believe that it is impossible that the pteranodon dropped Zara on purpose. However, your assumption that it is common sense that the pteranodon would not drop its prey on purpose is myopic in its understanding of how flying predators operate. Many birds of prey, who are carnivorous, will snatch up prey and the purposely drop it in an effort to kill it. It is possible that is the case here. But because there is no context - there is not default conclusion.

“That is the point I am.making. The context makes it unnecessary to use a word offering "more concise depiction.”

I am aware that there is a point that you are trying to make. However, your point relies heavily on a false premise that I have refuted. You are seeing context where none currently exists. That said even if there was context the word "dropped" would still be the more concise and correct verb to use - at this point we would be discussing the quality of writing.

“If the article just said "Zara fell" without any contextual clues, then it could be interpreted the wrong way.”

The context that you think is there, that would then lend a concise depiction of what in this context Zara falling means, is not there. She was snatched and then fell into the enclosure leaves a murky gap between two events. She was snatched, ok? Then she fell into the enclosure - since you are not using "dropped" here and instead are using the generic verb "fall" there is nothing concrete linking that action to pteranodon. Any sequence of events, independent of her being dropped by the pteranodon, could have lead to her falling into the enclosure. Regardless of what is already obvious – the point is to not make the reader sit back and go through their mental rolodex and remember what they might have seen in the trailer so that they connect the dots – quality writing will simply put the image in their head.

Now, obviously we can’t be all that descriptive because, again, right now this passage is reliant on a heavily edited and incomplete scene – but with what we do currently know we can use certain words that best depict what is seen in the trailers.

It needs to be noted that when reading a page on any given wikia about a certain subject that references used to substantiate the information therein is not being seen by the reader - the reader is only seeing your words. If you are trying to draw an accurate picture of an event you need to use the words that best bring to mind the images that are most like the actual imagery being used as a reference. The word "fall" is a far cry from the best way to depict those events when there is a more distinguished word that concisely depicts not only something falling but something falling from recently being enclosed in a grip.

“But the article says more than that. The article says she was grabbed by a pteranodon, which can fly. A flying animal would bring her to a higher level. Then she winds up in the mosasaurus tank, which is at a ground level, below a flying animal. Therefore, it becomes clear that "fall" in this context means Zara went from a higher level to a lower level.”

Obvious as that may be - without using accurate depictions of that event, via the words you choose, you instead draw a vague picture and then force the reader to have to search for a more accurate depiction to better understand what they are reading. Even if that merely means clicking on a reference marked embedded into the wiki page, forcing a reader to do that defeats the purpose of the Wikia. The reader should be able to gather all the information relevant to the subject of that given page on the specific page – without having to leave it.

“How else could this be interpreted rationally?”

Without using the word "dropped" you wrote that Zara went from being snatched to suddenly being in the state of falling. It's sloppy writing and regardless of what is obvious to you or anyone else it is still a vague depiction of events and technically can be interpreted in any way. The reader’s imagination can run wild because you have not secured their reading mind with concise constraints that direct them through the events with accuracy.

“Do you know the difference between passive voice and active voice? Active voice involves agency, passive voice does not. In other words, when a sentence is in active voice, it establishes who or what is performing the action. A passive voice sentence describes only the action. In the English language, using active voice is considered grammatically correct and the proper way to form sentences. This becomes clear when you compare how a sentence would look in passive voice to how it appears in active voice.”

I am well aware of the meaning of both active and passive voice – You, however, are not. The active voice simply means the subject in the sentence is performing the action. The passive voice means that the subject is receiving the action.

"The source I used doesn't mention this, but in the scenario the author described, the two ways of saying what happened are written in active voice and passive voice. "Steve broke the bed" is active voice. "The bed was broken" is passive voice."

Hanging your hat on this point does nothing for your argument. Perhaps you need to actually rehash your understanding of Active and Passive voice - check the link - https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/CCS_activevoice.html

"Zara fell into the pool" Is passive voice. But the larger issue here is that I believe you misunderstand the implications of Passive and Active voice. You believe that these mechanisms of English enforce your idea that words somehow inherently assign intent to them unless an adverb is present. Active voice, Context, adverbs are all concepts that act separately and independently of each other. You can use active voice without assigning intent and without the use of an adverb to add more clarity to an event. An active voice simply means that the subject in the sentence is performing the action – it does not place any value on the intent. “Which one sounds more grammatically correct? The answer is active voice.”

Wrong. Entirely incorrect. The active voice is not "grammatically incorrect" simply because Active Voice and Passive Voice are not grammatical concepts they are style of writing. Here, again, is the link I provided for you above that explains for you what Active and Passive voice is, because it’s obvious at this point that you don’t actually understand either one of them. - https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/CCS_activevoice.html Scroll down and you will see that there are times where the passive voice is the more preferred style of writing.

“The passive voice response doesn't sound like a complete sentence in English.” No. Wrong again. A passive voice is not a grammatical concept. You don’t understand the topic of which you are speaking about. A passive sentence is a grammatically correct sentence. “Choosing to have an action happen to the subject or not” is not a matter grammatical fidelity it is entirely up to the writer and what the writer wants the sentence to convey. If the desire is to be vague and not distinct then obviously and active voice would defeat that purpose. Both voices are simply styles of writing.

"It seems like something is missing. That's because a standard sentence in English has a subject, object, and a verb. Active voice has all three, passive voice does not.”

Again you establish that you have no real understanding of any mechanics of the English language. So No, you are wrong – it does not “seem” like something is missing. Furthermore- A complete sentence is comprised of a subject and a verb and a complete idea. So your distortion of this rule – “standard sentence in English has a subject, object, and a verb” – is utterly false.

So, I’m going to be preemptive and address a point you make below –

“Zara is then dropped into the enclosure” – is a complete sentence. It has a subject – Zara, a verb – Dropped, and a complete idea – the fact that she was dropped into an enclosure.

It is in passive voice – But I have thoroughly explained to you at this point that the active and passive voice are not grammatical concepts. Using one instead of the other depends entirely of the nature of the sentence, neither one has any inherent grammatical value.

"The same rules apply to the scenario involving Zara. Passive voice: "Zara was dropped."”

Yes, that is a passive voice since the action is happening to her. It’s still a correct sentence. Using a passive voice is not grammatically incorrect. There is no way to describe what happened to Zara specifically without using a passive voice. That is simply the nature of any sentence dedicated to describing what happened to Zara. Because in any case, regardless of how you write it, it won’t be Zara that is performing the action it will be the action that is happening to Zara.

"Active voice: "The pteranodon dropped Zara." Again, the active voice sentence is the grammatically correct one in English.”

The active voice has nothing to do with grammar. You are distorting and confusing concepts, styles, and grammar without knowing the distinctions that separate them.

"It has a subject (the pteranodon), a verb (dropped), and an object (Zara). The passive voice sentence has an object (Zara) and a verb (dropped), but no subject.”

Wrong. A complete sentence is comprised of a Subject, a verb, and a complete idea. The passive voice sentence – “Zara was dropped” is a complete and grammatically correct sentence, despite also being written in a passive voice.

“The point I'm making here is it is grammatically correct to hold someone or something responsible for an action in English.”

The point you are making is overwhelmingly incorrect and it is quite unfortunate that you went to such a drawn out length to only establish that you don’t know what you are talking about.

"To not say who performed the action is deemed grammatically incorrect.”

No, that is incorrect. A passive voiced sentence is a grammatically correct sentence. Look it up. Like actually do some research and stop guessing.

"That’s why English speakers are more likely to place blame on others, as highlighted by that article, and that's why English speakers usually assume an action was done deliberately if there's no context or adverbs to tell them otherwise.”

That has nothing to do with grammar. Nothing what so ever. One, you are relying on a site that is not an authority on the subject and two the site is not discussing accurate use of the written language. There are many nuances of English that baffle native speakers – however those nuances do not lose their factuality simply because many speakers of the language are ignorant of them.

On average, the vast majority of native English speakers do not use the English language correctly. They rely on ingrained colloquial and short cuts to convey ideas quicker or they are deeply rooted in home taught discrepancies and incorrect grammar.

Written English is not dictated by that however. And quality writing relies on the accurate use of long established tenants of the English language. “Yes, "the pteranodon dropped Zara" does not mean it did so intentionally. Yes, it could mean the pteranodon accidentally dropped her, even without expanding the sentence. But because we speak a language that requires us to identify who performed an action, we naturally assume the action was done deliberately.”

It wouldn’t matter what you assume nor is what you assume a universal imperative. Regardless, the fact remains that the word “dropped” is the more concise and accurate depiction of the event.

Again – revisit the link I provided you in regards to the use of Passive and Active voice and read the following – https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/CCS_activevoice.html At the heart of every good sentence is a strong, precise verb

That is literally in the first sentence and that is from a site that is actually discussing the mechanics of the English language. In other words, unlike your links, that site I have directed you to is a reputable and credible source.

“Refer to my link above, where the writer had to mention certain actions were done "unintentionally.””

I have read your links already, as you have seen above, and refuted them. You need read my link.

“I don't see how using "pool" instead of "enclosure" diminishes the writing.”

The quality issue here is you are using a word that does not accurately depict what she fell into. It technically isn’t a pool and therefore should not be called that.

“Using "pool" simply indicates Zara landed in the water.”

Zara didn’t just fall into water or into a pool. She fell into an enclosure for the mosasaurus. It’s not just a pool. So why call it that when there is an actual name of the location that is an accurate depiction of what it is?

“this information and the context of the article (saying it was the mosasaurus' pool), clues readers into realizing the mosasaurus is the shark-eating reptile from the previews. It's the only that's been shown in the water.”

The word pool does, context or not, not immediately bring to mind the image of an enclosure for a giant aquatic beast. So why use it when the word “pool” is so lacking is its descriptive power in this context.

“It doesn't "spoon feed" them that information, they figure that out on their own when they learn Zara landed in water.”

That isn’t what I was referring to when I said “There is no need to spoon feed”. The notion that, and this was your logic, that the word “pool” should be used instead of “enclosure” because some readers might not understand that a mosasaurus enclosure means it’s filled with water is a strange solution when you could keep the word “enclosure”, which again is more accurate, and simply add- “Zara was dropped into the water of the mosasaurus enclosure”.