Thread:Gsbr/@comment-4655954-20150507124430/@comment-2253059-20150516012246

BadlyBruisedMuse wrote:

Yes, I did say that and I still stand by it because it is correct. If we are describing what happened - dropped infers that something fell from something's grip- fall does not. It's really that simple and that distinction matters thus making "dropped" the correct word to use in that context.

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

You keep insisting that "Dropped" implies intent, but that simply is not true. It never is. The word "drop" does not ever inherently imply conscious intent on behalf of the subject that is doing the dropping. There is not a statute in the English language that makes this an established rule of language. So your insistence that it is so, is false.

Then why do adverbs like "accidentally" and "unintentionally" exist in the first place? 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? You are looking at the word too literally. You are only considering the definition of the word and not how the word appears in the context of a sentence. When we read about an action being performed, with just nouns and verbs, we normally assume it was done intentionally. 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:

[]

Notice how the majority of the actions being described lack adverbs. The reader automatically assumes the actions were deliberate. But at two points, the adverb "unintentionally" is placed in front of a verb to inform the reader the action was not deliberate. 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.

Readers could interpret it that way, and probably would, or the could not. Either way it's beside the point. If there is a word that offers a more concise depiction, then that word should be used. The technicality remains that with the use of a generic word that offers no specific description her falling could, again technically, imply anything. Such as she fell into the enclosure, not because she was dropped by the pteranodon, but by some other means simply because she was near it at some time after she was snatched.

A generic word could not technically mean anything when placed in a specific context. That is the point I am making. The context makes it unnecessary to use a word offering "more concise depiction." If the article just said "Zara fell" without any contextual clues, then it could be interpreted the wrong way. 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. How else could this be interpreted rationally?

Sorry this claim of yours is still incorrect, and your link isn't helping you. Your source isn't discussing that actual mechanics of written English and it's propers uses. Not to mention that you are falsely equivocating the scenario in your link with the scenario involving Zara. Furthermore, what is being discussed in your link has nothing to do with what is correct it what isn't but just how people perceive things. There are many funny rules in the English Language that native speaker find jarring, however, that doesn't mean that those rules and those standards should be broken to placate what is, ultimately ignorance on proper use of words and grammar.

So again the word "drop" has no inherent meaning of intent. It never does. The only way it could be defined as such is with context. So in this instances - "zara was snatched by the pteranodon who then dropped her into the mosasaurus enclosures in an attempt to drown its prey" <- Here we know the she was dropped intentionally, because the context establishes that. Without that context the word dropped simply means she fell from its grip.

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.

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. Which one sounds more grammatically correct? The answer is active voice. The passive voice response doesn't sound like a complete sentence in English. 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.

The same rules apply to the scenario involving Zara. Passive voice: "Zara was dropped." Active voice: "The pteranodon dropped Zara." Again, the active voice sentence is the grammatically correct one in English. 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.

The point I'm making here is it is grammatically correct to hold someone or something responsible for an action in English. To not say who performed the action is deemed grammatically incorrect. 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. 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. Refer to my link above, where the writer had to mention certain actions were done "unintentionally."

I can understand and appreciate your concern for readers who may not understand certain things. But I don't agree that the quality of writing needs to be diminished to do so. It's a safer bet to assume that the reader has enough knowledge to understand what they are reading, and if not, has enough know how to find out what any word or concept they do not understand means. Trying to spoon feed the content here makes the articles come across as juvenile.

I don't see how using "pool" instead of "enclosure" diminishes the writing. Using "pool" simply indicates Zara landed in the water. 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. It doesn't "spoon feed" them that information, they figure that out on their own when they learn Zara landed in water.