SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
SUOP. Note 18
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
JH = Jay Halcomb
JH: The subjunctive is a dangerous modality, best eschewed unless
it's very well qualified -- and I do not think general agreement
about such qualification exists. In fact, I know that it does not.
JH: | Another current [FOG] Gem, referring to the Russian River, with
| its threatened Coho and Steelhead and its endangered freshwater
| shrimp: "It would be anticipated that in the event that the
| sediment enters the Russian River, the large volume of water,
| occurring during the winter in the lower reach of the Russian
| River, will mitigate any small amount of sediment coming off
| this THP". Would it now -- be anticipated? By whom? *Was*
| it anticipated? *Is* it anticipated? How does possible
| anticipation weigh against demonstrable fact, even in a THP?
| Is there a rule in the Forest Practice Rules requiring the
| use of subjunctives, the third person, and the passive voice?
| The Editors can't find it, but it must be there somewhere.
| Flood victims must be comforted, knowing about this fortunate
| mitigation.
|
| Source: FOGs http://www.rrraul.org/fogs.html
JA: I didn't mean "behavior modification" or anything like that.
We cannot literally force a project group to achieve a happy
mediation between its actual and espoused agenda, or even to
bring about a condition of accord between its aspirations and
a set of practical aims that are feasible, genuine, and honest.
Again, I keep going back to our tired old tyre safety example.
If product producers make claims that are not supported by the
available test data, then the least we can do is alert the media.
MW: The record of unresolved issues against a project
would be appropriate evidence for voting against
acceptance of a deliverable that had not succeeded.
JA: I observe the use of subjunctive mood, for example, your "would be" above,
to express a wish, or perhaps a statement of the way things "ought to be".
I have many fond wishes of my own, but they become a bit too fond when
there is no Expectation -- and let me say that my years of statistics,
not to mention years of even sadder experience, have taught me to use
the term "Expectation" as an experienced-based term quite distinct
from the optative category of hopes and wishes -- that such hopes
and wishes will be actualized, certainly not all by themselves.
JA: So our task here, in this Specification Of Procedures,
is not merely to state our hopes and wishes, but to
reason out the schematics of plans that may, on the
basis of experience and reason, be Expected to have
some practical effects on behalf of their success.
JH: Delete 'may', 'be Expected', and 'to have';
respectively insert 'will', Null, and 'cause'
Jay,
E-fecting your e-dictorials, I e-duce the 2nd e-diction:
JA ["will"/"may", !e!/"be Expected", "cause"/"to have"]:
| So our task here, in this Specification Of Procedures,
| is not merely to state our hopes and wishes, but to
| reason out the schematics of plans that will, on the
| basis of experience and reason, cause some practical
| effects on behalf of their success.
Ay, there's the rub.
But you have just e-lided, by your e-mendment, the very e-sense
of the e-pitomic e-pigraph that you e-mitted above, by fogging
o'er the very issue of "By whom?" will this cause be e-fected,
if we lack Gev's e-nuff to e-lecture-motivate the e-lectorate?
That is the question.
Could you, should you, would you
seek ways to retach the effects
to the effectors thereof, I'd
be remiss if I didn't offer
that pragmatic thinking
is the very way.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o