SUO: RE: Re: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
The subjunctive does have a proper use, along with contrary-to-fact
conditionals. But as you show here, it is also the last refuge of the timid,
along with the passive voice (leaving it unclear who is to do the doing of
the thing).
Nice example.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-standard-upper-ontology@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of
Jay Halcomb
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:32 PM
To: Jon Awbrey; SUO; Matthew West
Subject: SUO: Re: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
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.
"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
Further remark below.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@att.net>
To: "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>; "Matthew West"
<matthew.west@shell.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 06:12
Subject: SUO: Re: Standard Upper Ontology Procedures
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> SUOP. Note 15
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> JA = Jon Awbrey
> MW = Matthew West
>
> JA: 2. Doing it for them.
>
> MW: ??
>
> 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.
>
> Matthew,
>
> 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.
>
> 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
[Delete 'may', 'be Expected', and 'to have'; respectively insert 'will',
Null, and
'cause']
> some practical effects on behalf of their success.
>
> That is the task.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>