How many black cards have you been awarded?

[Inquartata]

For the sake of argument, to here is not a preposition but part of an infinitive.

You mean a function word serving as a substitute for an infinitive. It isn't actually an infinitive itself, or part of one---the verb itself is the infinitive, to merely an adjunct.

Not that it makes in significantly more or less grammatically correct, but it's not preposition.

True, it does not make it correct usage. But it IS a preposition. It's always either a preposition or an adverb, and in this case it's not adverbial, so...

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US other than yourself seems to agree there.

Argumentum ad numeram. If every single person alive believes in ghosts---or God---that does not make ghosts any more real or prove that God exists.

And that many people with a faulty understanding of the intricacies of the English language disagree with me somehow fails to convert me to their position.

The dictionary, alas, does not define blow within the universe of discourse of fencers, and as such is a poor tool.

As I have said before, if the word was meant to convey a specialized meaning, it would have been so stipulated. Just as the glossary does not purport to be a substitute for a fencing treatise, neither do the rules generally purport to take the place of a dictionary for words in common usage.

In this case, you are wrong. It's not a first, either

Words cannot convey the vehemence of my disagreement.

[keropie]

But numbers have a chance to convey the vehemence of our respect for your position here: 0.

I'm sorry, but argumentum ad numeram is 100% valid when it comes to common usage. That's what common usage IS. What MOST people use. MOST of us agree that a blow has more than just contact to it. The COMMON usage of the word is that a blow has more than just contact to it.

Edit: and in English I've always seen the infinitive of the verb to be 'to <fill_in_the_blank_with_a_verb>.' The understood part of the sentence in question would be a verb, so the 'to' in question is part of the (poorly) undertood infinitive. It would not be part of a prepositional phrase, so it's not a preposition.

[mrbiggs]

When it's a word in common usage, and context doesn't call clearly for a specific sense, no. You use the primary sense.

Seriously, man, your English teachers should be horse-whipped.

Fine. I'll skim the rules, use a dictionary, and come up with an absurd rule interpretation.

Which is pretty much what you've done in this thread...

A) No, you couldn't.

B) Tsk, ending a sentence with a preposition, TSK I say!

Though "to" is sometimes a preposition, here it is used as half of an infinitive.

Kalivor, there's nothing wrong with my sentence. As you said, the remainder of the infinitive is understood. If it makes it more grammatically correct, I could instead say "I could go through the rules and find a place where the primary definition of a word results in an absurd interpretation, but I don't think I have to go through the rules and find a place where the primary definition of a word results in an absurd interpretation.

That's on the translator, then. Luckily we aren't using the French rules.

No, the translator did a good job. For example, "coup" in French means a hit or blow; some type of forcible contact. Unfortunately, no word in English has a primary definition that coincides exactly with the primary definition of "coup." Therefore, they used a word that has the right secondary definition, rather than simply translating it incorrectly.

[mrbiggs]

A. METHOD OF MAKING A TOUCH
t.61 The épée is a thrusting weapon only. Attacks with this weapon are
therefore made with the point, and with the point only.

This sentence has not one, but two words whose dictionary definitions do not work right.

thrust  /θrʌst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thruhst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, verb, thrust, thrust‧ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to push forcibly; shove; put or drive with force: He thrust his way through the crowd. She thrust a dagger into his back.
2. to put boldly forth or impose acceptance of: to thrust oneself into a conversation between others; to thrust a dollar into the waiter's hand.
3. to extend; present: He thrust his fist in front of my face.
4. Archaic. to stab or pierce, as with a sword: She thrust his back with a dagger.

Obviously, one does not have to push his weapon forcibly in epee to get a touch. As a matter of fact, it's entirely possible to just stand there and get a touch. The correct usage would be #3 or #4.

point  /pɔɪnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[point] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a sharp or tapering end, as of a dagger.
2. a projecting part of anything: A point of land juts into the bay.
3. a tapering extremity: the points of the fingers.
4. something having a sharp or tapering end: a pen point.
5. a pointed tool or instrument, as an etching needle.
6. a stone implement with a tapering end found in some Middle and Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic cultures and used primarily for hunting.
7. a mark made with or as if with the sharp end of something: Her sharp heels left points in the carpet.
8. a mark of punctuation.
9. period (def. 15).
10. See under decimal fraction.
11. Phonetics. a diacritic indicating a vowel or other modification of sound.
12. one of the embossed dots used in certain systems of writing and printing for the blind.
13. something that has position but not extension, as the intersection of two lines.
14. a place of which the position alone is considered; spot: We're leaving for Chicago and points west.
15. any definite position, as in a scale, course, etc.: the boiling point.
16. (in acupuncture) a particular spot on the body at which a needle may be inserted, as to relieve pain.
17. Navigation. any of 32 separate horizontal directions, 11° 15′ apart, as indicated on the card of a compass or gauged with reference to the heading of a vessel.
18. Nautical. point of sailing.
19. a degree or stage: frankness to the point of insult.
20. a particular instant of time: It was at that point that I told him he'd said enough.
21. a critical position in a course of affairs: Morale had reached a low point.
22. a decisive state of circumstances: He reached the point where he could no longer pay his debts.
23. the important or essential thing: the point of the matter.
24. the salient feature of a story, epigram, joke, etc.: to miss the point.
25. a particular aim, end, or purpose: He carried his point.
26. a hint or suggestion: points on getting a job.
27. a single or separate article or item, as in an extended whole; a detail or particular: the fine points of a contract.
28. an individual part or element of something: noble points in her character.
29. a distinguishing mark or quality, esp. one of an animal, used as a standard in stockbreeding, judging, etc.

The first definition of point is NOT the right one, because epees don't taper at the end. There is a tip on the end instead. As a matter of fact, NONE of the 29 definitions of point make any sense in this rule at all. I suppose that epee fencers have to score a touch with the part of the blade right below the barrel?

[Inquartata]

But numbers have a chance to convey the vehemence of our respect for your position here: 0.

It also expresses very well how little I care whether or not you "respect my position". Being right is its own reward.

I'm sorry, but argumentum ad numeram is 100% valid when it comes to common usage. That's what common usage IS. What MOST people use.

And alas for your purposes, the handful of you arguing against me do NOT amount to "common usage" even in terms of this argument. How may of you have expressed here the position you advance? A dozen, maybe? Less? Far short even of statistical significance. And in terms of the use of words in standard English? Even if every single f.netter agreed with you about meaning, that STILL isn't common usage. Common usage in this case refers to the understanding common to all or at least the majority of English-speakers, not all or a majority of a tiny subset of them.

The understood part of the sentence in question would be a verb, so the 'to' in question is part of the (poorly) undertood infinitive. It would not be part of a prepositional phrase, so it's not a preposition.

It's a function word.

Look up the definitions ( here we go again! ) of 'to' in a dictionary. It is one of 2 things: a prepostion, or an adverb. If you can find a definition which says 'to, part of an infinitive' I'd be very much astonished.

Admittedly, it's a fine distinction.

Maybe we should get a ruling from Peach.

[keropie]

Being right is its own reward.

And alas for your purposes, the handful of you arguing against me do NOT amount to "common usage" even in terms of this argument. How may of you have expressed here the position you advance? A dozen, maybe? Less? Far short even of statistical significance. ... Common usage in this case refers to the understanding common to all or at least the majority of English-speakers, not all or a majority of a tiny subset of them.

I still maintain that 'common usage' for a definition of a term in a rule book for any sport is the common understanding of that term by the relevant practitioners of that sport (let's just assume that people who are currently in some way active in fencing, in our case... current fencers, coaches, officials, etc. Just because some guy wears funny tights, a feather in his cap, and uses a rapier while calling himself a fencer does not, imo, qualify him into our realm of discussion). In this case, I could care less what the general English speaking population thinks of the word, any more than a basketball ref would care what the general English speaking population thinks of the words 'foul' or 'traveling.'

Now, I agree. The 'dozen or so' people who agree on 'our common usage' does not constitute a majority or even a noticeable minority of those that I would include in the discussion. However, we do constitute roughly speaking 12 times the number of people who have come down on your side of the argument. Now, neither is significant. So we have to agree that at best neither side can prove it's case on 'common usage.' The dictionary (regardless of which one you pick, until the FIE or USFA releases one) is a flawed tool for this case. I'm sure that none of this has made an impact. Faith is a mighty tool, even when misdirected

Oh, and don't get the idea that I dislike you I have nothing against you. Some of your posts are quite amusing, some insightful, some tedious (the whole tang bend thing comes to mind), some 'seem' willfully ignorant (though I expect that some of the argument comes from the desire to argue), but I've got nothin' against you

[Inquartata]

Though "to" is sometimes a preposition, here it is used as half of an infinitive.

Sigh...

See above. It's not half of anything. It's a function word, and a preposition. If your theory were accepted ending a sentence with 'to' would never have entered usage as one of the most widely recognized of solecisms, because it would ALWAYS be "half of an infinitive". But it has, because it isn't.

Not that I expect you to change your mind or anything.

If it makes it more grammatically correct, I could instead say "I could go through the rules and find a place where the primary definition of a word results in an absurd interpretation, but I don't think I have to go through the rules and find a place where the primary definition of a word results in an absurd interpretation.

Or you could just replace the bold section with "do that". Or instead of your terminal "have to", you could have said "must".

You want to justify this as some sort of labor-saving abbreviation, an acceptable variation. But it's really just laziness if you know the rules of English---and if you don't, it's error compounded by stubbornness.

Just like the rest of your argument with me about the blow-with-guard penalty.

No, the translator did a good job.

So, French is your native language, then?

For example, "coup" in French means a hit or blow; some type of forcible contact.

Read back a page or two. We've covered this. It has various denotations and connotations, just like words in English do, of which one is doubtless primary. But it will also depend on context.

Unfortunately, no word in English has a primary definition that coincides exactly with the primary definition of "coup."

Oh, I suspect one does. French isn't Inuit, after all. We do share a culture ( and indeed a shared linguistic past ).

[Inquartata]

Obviously, one does not have to push his weapon forcibly in epee to get a touch. As a matter of fact, it's entirely possible to just stand there and get a touch.

Good of you to throw in an "obviously" to tell me what I ought to think, but no, the primary sense works fine. "Just standing there" might get a touch, but it's not a thrust by any means. More like a point in line.

If I wander against my opponent's sabre blade, the light will go off, but no cut has been made. You're conflating actions with their results.

The correct usage would be #3 or #4.

It happens that #3 also works, as is sometimes the case. #4 is right out, though. You aren't piercing or stabbing anyone. There is no penetration.

The first definition of point is NOT the right one, because epees don't taper at the end.

What?!

Of course they do.

There is a tip on the end instead.

Meh, very droll!

Covering a point with something does not magic the point out of existence! Put a tarp over a car and the car is still there; handses in pocketses is still handses, my precious!

[Inquartata]

I still maintain that 'common usage' for a definition of a term in a rule book for any sport is the common understanding of that term by the relevant practitioners of that sport

Thank you, Bill Clinton.

I suppose that "the", "of", "with", "for" and "and" have special meanings for fencers, too?

The rules are written in English, and absent a warning that a word is being used in a special way they are understood as standard English words.

In this case, I could care less

How much less could you care, then? Apparently you do care at least a little.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

any more than a basketball ref would care what the general English speaking population thinks of the words 'foul' or 'traveling.'

You prove my point, inasmuch as both words are specially defined in the rules of basketball. For instance,

"Section IX-Traveling
Traveling is progressing in any direction while in possession of the ball, which is in excess of prescribed limits as noted in Rule 4-Section VIII and Rule 10- Section XIV. "

If there were such a definition of "blow" in the fencing rules we would indeed be discussing cant rather than standard English. But there is not, and so we are not.

The 'dozen or so' people who agree on 'our common usage' does not constitute a majority or even a noticeable minority of those that I would include in the discussion. However, we do constitute roughly speaking 12 times the number of people who have come down on your side of the argument.

And you've come back to the fallacy of numbers again....

Now, neither is significant. So we have to agree that at best neither side can prove it's case on 'common usage.'

Do we? Pray, WHY do we?

The dictionary (regardless of which one you pick, until the FIE or USFA releases one) is a flawed tool for this case.

Case not proven, unfortunately. Even if it were, the dictionary, absent a rule-book glossary entry for 'blow' affirming a specialized meaning, is the best resource we have. A spoon is not ideal for digging a well, but one does not discard it and use ones bare hands instead simply for want of a shovel. We use the best tool we've got...

I'm sure that none of this has made an impact. Faith is a mighty tool, even when misdirected

Nice preemptive strike. Not sure it would win you any debating points, though, even if it's not a formal fallacy.

Meanwhile, I could say the same of you, and probably with more justice. Faith is after all a thing reinforced and reaffirmed by company.

Oh, and don't get the idea that I dislike you

No worries. After all, I haven't accused you of argumentum ad hominem, have I?

[mrbiggs]

Good of you to throw in an "obviously" to tell me what I ought to think, but no, the primary sense works fine. "Just standing there" might get a touch, but it's not a thrust by any means. More like a point in line.

What? You're saying that one must push forcibly with an epee to get a touch? Should all other touches be annulled then?

#3 is the most correct. #4 is correct if you assume that the terminology was used in an attempt to imitate original fencing terminology, wherein one would actually pierce his opponent. Nowadays, the word is not used as such in fencing, but I don't think that it's reasonable to expect dictionaries to reflect the usage of a word known by several thousand people.

You want to justify this as some sort of labor-saving abbreviation, an acceptable variation. But it's really just laziness if you know the rules of English---and if you don't, it's error compounded by stubbornness.

Argumentum ad notknowinghowEnglishisusedinreallife, I'm afraid. As Winston Churchil once put it, "this is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put."

[mrbiggs]

You mean, so we can ignore the parts we disagree with?

Dumbass.


And yes, I did look through five pages of your posts to find that.

[Inquartata]

What? You're saying that one must push forcibly with an epee to get a touch? Should all other touches be annulled then?

Read ALL the words, not just the ones that interest you.

I said that "touch" and "thrust" are not the same thing. The rule says only that epee is "a thrusting weapon"; it does NOT tell you that you cannot get a touch without thrusting, or even that a thrust is required for a touch to "count".

#3 is the most correct.

Sorry, but it isn't. The primary sense works just fine and is thus to be preferred.

#4 is correct if you assume that the terminology was used in an attempt to imitate original fencing terminology, wherein one would actually pierce his opponent.

And you know what happens when you assume.

The primary sense works just fine, and there is no need to engage in semantic gymnastics in order to tease another into approximating pertinence. #4 is not useful or accurate, and it's certainly not preferable to the primary sense.

Nowadays, the word is not used as such in fencing, but I don't think that it's reasonable to expect dictionaries to reflect the usage of a word known by several thousand people.

I miss your point here.

Argumentum ad notknowinghowEnglishisusedinreallife, I'm afraid.

Very droll, but of course it does not refute the assertion. Perhaps you thought I wouldn't notice that.

It was possible for you to have written your original sentence correctly and with as much clarity as you did by writing it incorrectly. You could even have done it with more parsimony. So it was either laziness or ignorance of correct English practice which led you to compose the sentence you did. I am willing to believe that it was only the former...but you keep trying to convince me that it was the latter. Really you should quit while you're ahead...

As Winston Churchil once put it, "this is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put."

Firstly, though the quote is attributed to Churchill the attribution is dubious. The line appears nowhere in his writings, and there are a large number of variants, their only commonality being the last 7 words. It may well be apocryphal.

Secondly, however witty the phrase it only emphasizes the solecism even further. The line could be written correctly much more easily.

Thirdly, Churchill, though an erudite and intelligent writer, is not authoritative on English usage. That is, he is not empowered by his wit or reputation to change the rules of English and turn a solecism into acceptable usage merely because it pleases him to do so. He was as bound by the rules as any of us. If he chose to break one and then make fun of it he only demonstrated his own laziness, inattention or orneriness thereby.

[Inquartata]

Dumbass.


And yes, I did look through five pages of your posts to find that.

Tu quoque fallacy.

Yes, I am lazy on occasion, too. Where did I ever aver otherwise?

That I have from time to time committed the same error does not make it more acceptable for YOU. Or do you look upon me as a role model?

[mrbiggs]

Tu quoque fallacy.

Yes, I am lazy on occasion, too. Where did I ever aver otherwise?

That I have from time to time committed the same error does not make it more acceptable for YOU. Or do you look upon me as a role model?

That's not a tu quoque fallacy. It's hypocracy. It's you going on and on about an archaic English "rule," talking about how I need to learn to talk, etc. I was pointing out that what you were saying was entirely BS, and just like the rest of your arguments, it's based on pedantic, sometimes archaic usages and definitions that have no purpose in fencing or anywhere else in life.

[mrbiggs]

Sorry, but it isn't. The primary sense works just fine and is thus to be preferred.

Wrong, wrong wrong. You do not have to push forcibly, shove, or drive your weapon to get a touch. The rules say you do, using the primary definition. Using the tertiary definition, you do not have to push or drive the weapon. I don't know how I can make this more clear...

[Inquartata]

That's not a tu quoque fallacy.

Yes, it is. Essentially, you went to a lot of trouble to go find an instance of my ending a sentence with a preposition so that you could say "Well, you did it, too". That's what the tu quoque fallacy IS---and it doesn't prove anything.

It's hypocracy.

It would be, if I claimed that it was allright for me to do it but not you, or that my usage was substantively different from yours and thus acceptable. I did not, though. Mine was laziness, too, and a solecism. Which does not make it correct for others.

It's you going on and on about an archaic English "rule," talking about how I need to learn to talk, etc.

And the difference is that I acknowledge that my example was lazy and bad English, whereas you have been at pains to try to justify your example as perfectly acceptable and correct. Which it was not, any more than was mine.

I was pointing out that what you were saying was entirely BS, and just like the rest of your arguments, it's based on pedantic, sometimes archaic usages and definitions that have no purpose in fencing or anywhere else in life.

Well, I suppose you must find that a very comforting rationalization...

"Yes, officer, I know that technically speeding is an infraction of the law, but in real life everyone does it, so that makes it acceptable and NOT an infraction. Hence the law is BS and pedantic legalistic nonsense and I cannot imagine why you pulled me over for doing 75 in a 55 MPH zone!"

[Inquartata]

Wrong, wrong wrong. You do not have to push forcibly, shove, or drive your weapon to get a touch. The rules say you do, using the primary definition. Using the tertiary definition, you do not have to push or drive the weapon. I don't know how I can make this more clear...

That's one bad thing about erroneous conclusions: It's often impossible to make them "clear", because they are nonsensical to begin with.

Again: The rule says only that epee is a thrusting weapon. It does NOT say "You must thrust to get a touch". "Thrust" is not made into a synonym for "touch". The rule does not say what you insist it says in that regard. Look at it again:

A. METHOD OF MAKING A TOUCH
t.61 The épée is a thrusting weapon only. Attacks with this weapon are
therefore made with the point, and with the point only.

Let's deconstruct it.

The first sentence tells us that the epee is a thrusting weapon, and not a cutting one or a cut-and-thrust one. Thats' ALL it tells us. It doesn't tell us you can't do anything but thrust with it. It doesn't tell us that you can only score by a thrust.

The second sentence only discusses attacks. From other rules, we know that an attack is not the only action one can make with an epee, so that isn't limiting anyone to "thrusts", either. It does not exclude other things being done, and it doesn't mention "touches" at all. Unlike you, it has not confused the action ( attack, riposte, stop hit, PIL ) with it's result ( a touch).

Had you wanted a valid example of imprecise wording in the rule, you should have gone to sabre, where t.70 talks about "cutting with the cutting edge, the flat and the back of the blade"...and NONE of the dictionary definitions of "cut" apply to a slap with a dull edge, much less the flat or back of a weapon! A sabre does not "cut" in ANY sense of the word; the term is applied only as a relic of the day of real sabres.

Yes, there is imprecise wording in the rule book. I've said as much myself ere now. I'm not sure what you think it proves, though.

[Sciurus-Rex]

I've reported this thread to the department of Homeland Security. The only reason this incredibly convoluted exchange could possibly be kept alive this long is because you're sending coded messages of some sort.