The Einstein Hoax?

[Piggy]

<hijack>

That seems like argument by assertion to me.

I didn't explain myself. "Grammar" is commonly used to mean "proper or formal dialect/usage". But by "grammar", I mean the set of constructions allowable in English. (This is akin to the way "theory" is commonly used to mean "guess" or "informed opinion", but means something very different in science.) So, for instance, "I live United States five year" isn't grammatical in that sense. Ending sentences with prepositions is common in English -- it doesn't violate the grammar in the technical sense of the word.

Shouldn't the non-interrogative version be "Others Einstein plagarized from" or "Einstein plagarized others from"?

I shortened it, for convenience. The full non-interrogative version would be "Einstein did plagiarize from who." The first example you give is a nominal phrase that can't be converted into an interrogative as-is. The second is some sort of fragment that also can't be transformed as-is. Therefore, neither is acceptable as a backformed interrogative of the clause "Who did Einstein plagiarize from?"

If you want to convert "who" to "others" for convenience, then the non-interrogative form of the clause is "Einstein did plagiarize from others".

Part of the problem is that placing the indirect object, rather than the direct object, next to the verb has been accepted. For instance, rather than saying "Einstein plagrized this idea from Lorentz", people say "Einstein plagarized from Lorentz this idea", and that gets shortened to "Einstein plagarized from Lorentz". This leads to such linguistic monstrosities as "Banks market customers products".

V-IO-DO order is noncontroversial (e.g., "Give me the bat, Wendy").

The problem with "Banks market customers products" is not so much an issue of order as of ambiguity residing in the word forms, combined with an omitted preposition. "Banks" may be a plural or possessive noun (if heard, not read). "Market" may be a verb or noun. "Customers (if heard) may be a plural or possessive noun. So the brain has a hard time deciphering the string. ("Banks market customers' products" is what I want to hear, although that doesn't match the punctuation, and isn't true, either.)

The only meaning I can glean from the sentence (as punctuated) requires the highly nonstandard construction "market <someone> <something>" without the preposition "to" which would be expected, as in "Banks market products to customers".

But the sentence "They told us nothing" causes no confusion whatsoever. The order is not the problem. The esoteric usage "market them something" rather than "market something to them" is the problem here.

</hijack>

 

[Piggy]

I'm surprised that these Einstein debunkers didn't mention his first wife, Mileva Maric, a Serbian gentile who was trained as a physicist. There was some controversy a couple of years ago about whether Meric had contributed to Einstein's early work, but I think that there is little evidence to show that she had.

An interesting article on the "Einstein's Wife" speculations.

 

[epepke]

A good point. Noether is one of those scientists who are not known at all by the general public, but their contributions are incredibly important. Noether's theorem is the bread and butter of theoretical mechanics and, even more so, of the theory of fields. But how many laymen have heard of it, or what it roughly says?

Not to mention putting algebras, finally, on a sound theoretical basis.

At the risk of offending the moderators, Noether kicked royal ass. Not only was she incredibly brilliant, but she was equally at home with applied math and pure math so rarefied that you would probably die of mineral shortages if it were water and you drank it. This, basically, does not happen. Of course, she died far too young of a uterine tumor, so she didn't have a period of resting on her laurels.

Another example could be Gibbs (but know he is on a 2005 US stamp).

Hmmm... I wonder if skeptics could start a campaign to get Noether's visage on a US stamp, at least? She emigrated to the US, after all.

 

[a_unique_person]

An interesting article on the "Einstein's Wife" speculations.

performed badly ... in French

So, there is more to this than I first thought.

 

[Diamond]

Not to mention putting algebras, finally, on a sound theoretical basis.

At the risk of offending the moderators, Noether kicked royal ass. Not only was she incredibly brilliant, but she was equally at home with applied math and pure math so rarefied that you would probably die of mineral shortages if it were water and you drank it. This, basically, does not happen. Of course, she died far too young of a uterine tumor, so she didn't have a period of resting on her laurels.



Hmmm... I wonder if skeptics could start a campaign to get Noether's visage on a US stamp, at least? She emigrated to the US, after all.

I'd have to agree on Noether. Sophie Germain was another great mathematician.

 

[CurtC]

The fact of the matter is that while an argument can be made that there are situations where a preposition can legitimately end a sentence, it often is a problem, and it should be a red flag.

The more modern way of looking at the whole "ending sentences with prepositions" question is that in English, very few sentences are ever ended with prepositions. They're ended with phrasal verbs. Let's take the sentence/question that started this:

"Who did Einstein plagiarize from?"

The old way of looking at this is that "plagiarize" is the verb, "from" is a preposition, and "who" is the preposition's object.

The new improved way is that "plagiarize from" is a phrasal verb, which are always transitive, and "who" is its object. In that case, the sentence does not end with a preposition.

Phrasal verbs are used to convert an intransitive verb ("plagiarize") to a transitive one ("plagiarize from").

However, since "plagiarize" is traditionally a transitive verb, but can be now used as intransitive, it shouldn't be necessary to convert the less-accepted intransitive meaning to transitive by adding "from." While the way it's stated is clear, it's definitely not preferrable. "Who/whom did Einstein plagiarize?" is much cleaner.

 

[drkitten]

I concede it is merely a matter of opinion. "Einstein plagarized from Lorentz", much like "Einstein robbed from Lorentz" or "Einsteain sought for Lorentz", strike me as being wrong. Part of the problem is that placing the indirect object, rather than the direct object, nexzt to the verb has been accepted.

Um, "from Lorentz" is not an indirect object. It's a prepositional phrase.

In English, an indirect object is an unmarked noun [phrase], or an accusative pronoun. The classic example is the verb 'to give': John gave Harold the tacos.. And yes, in English, the indirect object follows the verb and is followed in turn by the direct object.

If you use a different ordering, e.g. John gave the tacos to Harold, then it's not an indirect object any more, but a dative prepositional phrase. Again, there is a classic example of this, the verb 'to donate,' which will take dative prepositional phrases (John donated the painting to the museum) but not indirect objects (*John donated the museum the painting).

And contrary to what you say here:

For instance, rather than saying "Einstein plagrized this idea from Lorentz", people say "Einstein plagarized from Lorentz this idea",

I have never seen verbs and direct objects being separated by dative prepositional phrases. Google supports me on this: although the phrasal search "plagiarized from * this" produces about 150 citations, almost all of them I can find are of the following form:

plagiarized from the Internet. This year's study found that almost

involving a sentential break, and none of them are VP-PP-DO.

 

[drkitten]

"Who did Einstein plagiarize from?"

The old way of looking at this is that "plagiarize" is the verb, "from" is a preposition, and "who" is the preposition's object.

The new improved way is that "plagiarize from" is a phrasal verb, which are always transitive, and "who" is its object. In that case, the sentence does not end with a preposition.

Except that "plagiarize from" isn't usually considered to be a phrasal verb, and I fail to see in what regard this "new" way (which, I must admit, I've never seen before) is at all an "improvement."

 

[Piggy]

Except that "plagiarize from" isn't usually considered to be a phrasal verb

I wouldn't consider it a phrasal verb, either. "Sign off" is a phrasal verb, which is why we get the amusing "sign off on".

 

[drkitten]

I wouldn't consider it a phrasal verb, either. "Sign off" is a phrasal verb, which is why we get the amusing "sign off on".

There's actually a simple test for phrasality-of-verb, one that "plagiarize from" fails. Basically, can the preposition be elided from the verb in dialogue? If it cannot, the verb is phrasal.

For example, consider the following exchange.

"Einstein plagiarized the Theory of Relativity."
"Oh, did he?"
"Yes, from Lorentz."

Contrast that with acknowleged phrasal verbs, and consider the unacceptability of the following:

*"I looked the word pretentious."
"Oh, did you"?
*"Yes, up in the dictionary."

or

*"I signed yesterday."
"Oh, did you?"
*"Yes, off on the proposal."

 

[Tirdun]

How come nobody ever attacks Planck? Or Stark? Hertz? Come on, spread the hate around. Segre and Chamberland? Y'know, antiprotons?!? Landau? I mean, he was a Ruskie in the 60's!!! Surely something can be trumped up out of that!

 

[epepke]

How come nobody ever attacks Planck? Or Stark? Hertz? Come on, spread the hate around. Segre and Chamberland? Y'know, antiprotons?!? Landau? I mean, he was a Ruskie in the 60's!!! Surely something can be trumped up out of that!

Marilyn Monroe didn't get hot for them.

 

[Art Vandelay]

If you want to convert "who" to "others" for convenience, then the non-interrogative form of the clause is "Einstein did plagiarize from others".

If you're going to change the order of the words to make it noninterrogerative, then that's hardly probitive. You might as well say "The Spanish version would be <<?De quien plagio Einstein?>>, and that's grammatically correct, so the original is as well."
(Note that if you were ask a Hispanic person <<?Quien Einsten plagio de?>>, you'll probably get some funny looks.)

V-IO-DO order is noncontroversial (e.g., "Give me the bat, Wendy").

It may be "noncontroversial", but it's still wrong.

The problem with "Banks market customers products" is not so much an issue of order as of ambiguity residing in the word forms, combined with an omitted preposition.

The fact is, there are so many redundancies in English that a single ambiguity is rarely enough to render a sentence incomprehensible. People are usually able to figure out what you mean, even when you use the incorrect (and even if you maintain that it's not incorrect, you must, at the very least, admit that it is ambiguous) V-IO-DO order. People are usually able to figure out what you mean, even when your verb is a word that's usually a noun. But when you put those together, it becomes difficult to interpret. So either it is incorrect for a word to funtion as both a noun and a verb, it is incorrect to use the V-IO-DO order, or there's nothing grammtically incorrect about gibberish.

But the sentence "They told us nothing" causes no confusion whatsoever.

That's because the verb is followed by the direct object. Note that while "say" and "tell" have similar meanings, they are very different grammatically. The direct object of "say" is the thing said, while the direct object of "tell" is the person being told. Hence, you can say "I told him that his car was on fire", but not "I said him that his car was on fire".

The esoteric usage "market them something" rather than "market something to them" is the problem here.

It may be "esoteric", but it is perfectly grammatical. If put it the proper order, few people will be confused by it. If you're going to acquit the V-IO-DO order, I don't see how you can indict something which has no grammatical problem at all.

Um, "from Lorentz" is not an indirect object. It's a prepositional phrase.

Surely it is obvious that my claim is that "Lorentz", not "from Lorentz", is an indirect object?

And yes, in English, the indirect object follows the verb and is followed in turn by the direct object.

Not in grammatically correct English. A more clear example would be "John gave the library books". According to this sentence, John gave the books, and the books were of a library nature. If you want to express that John gave books, and the recipient was the library, the correct statement would be "John gave books to the library". Strictly speaking, "John gave Harold the tacos" means "Someone known as 'Harold the tacos' was given by John". It is only because you reject that as a reasonable interpretation that you conclude that a different, grammatically incorrect, interpretation is the one meant. If I were to say "He presented Edward the Martyr", would you say that means "He presented the Martyr to Edward"? Or would you realize that it means "Someone known as 'Edward the Martyr' was presented by him"?

I have never seen verbs and direct objects being separated by dative prepositional phrases.

As I said, it is often shortened by removing the preposition. I really don't know how to tell Google to search by part of speech.

 

[Piggy]

If you're going to change the order of the words to make it noninterrogerative, then that's hardly probitive. You might as well say "The Spanish version would be <<?De quien plagio Einstein?>>, and that's grammatically correct, so the original is as well."
(Note that if you were ask a Hispanic person <<?Quien Einsten plagio de?>>, you'll probably get some funny looks.)

AV, you obviously don't understand the rules of English grammar. The transformations we're talking about are based on empirical research. Interrogatives in English are formed by regular tranfsormational rules. E.g., the interrogative form of the delcarative "You are wearing <something>" is "What are you wearing?". If you don't comprehend that, then you're discussing a topic that's beyond your expertise. I advise you not to continue with this, or you will get clowned.

Comparisons with Spanish (which I also speak and have studied enough to have an MA in Spanish Language and Literature) are irrelevant, because Spanish and English do not follow identical grammatical rules.

It may be "noncontroversial", but it's still wrong.

Again, only someone who does not understand the field could assert that a noncontroversial construction is somehow "wrong".

The fact is, there are so many redundancies in English that a single ambiguity is rarely enough to render a sentence incomprehensible. People are usually able to figure out what you mean, even when you use the incorrect (and even if you maintain that it's not incorrect, you must, at the very least, admit that it is ambiguous) V-IO-DO order.

V-IO-DO is standard. It is by no stretch of the imagination "incorrect". There is absolutely nothing inherently ambiguous about the construction. There is nothing even remotely ambiguous about common sentences such as "The boy handed the girl a note" or "Our manager gave the new-hires an orientation manual".

If you care to look at my post, I did not point to "a single ambiguity", but multiple ambiguities compounded by the omission of a preposition.

So either it is incorrect for a word to funtion as both a noun and a verb, it is incorrect to use the V-IO-DO order, or there's nothing grammtically incorrect about gibberish.

The last case is true. There is nothing grammatically incorrect about "Last week is taller than C sharp major", although it is gibberish.

Note that while "say" and "tell" have similar meanings, they are very different grammatically. The direct object of "say" is the thing said, while the direct object of "tell" is the person being told. Hence, you can say "I told him that his car was on fire", but not "I said him that his car was on fire".

The DO of "tell" is not the person being told. The person being told is the IO. The thing told is the DO, just as with "said".

All these are N-V-DO:
"He said his peace".
"He told the truth."
"He said a prayer."
"He told the secret."

"Said" does not take an indirect object:
*"He said me what he had to say." (* indicates a non-grammatical construction)

Surely it is obvious that my claim is that "Lorentz", not "from Lorentz", is an indirect object?

Obvious is not the issue. And really, there's no point talking about claims here. All this is very well established. In the sentence "Einstein plagiarized from Lorentz", "Lorentz" is the object of the preposition "from", not the IO of the verb "plagiarized".

Strictly speaking, "John gave Harold the tacos" means "Someone known as 'Harold the tacos' was given by John". It is only because you reject that as a reasonable interpretation that you conclude that a different, grammatically incorrect, interpretation is the one meant.

You have no clue what you're talking about. I recommend that you drop this whole issue right now and read a freshman grammar text. If not, let the clowning begin. You asked for it.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Comparisons with Spanish (which I also speak and have studied enough to have an MA in Spanish Language and Literature) are irrelevant, because Spanish and English do not follow identical grammatical rules.

And interrogerative and declarative sentences do not follow identical grammatical rules. Which is my point.

Again, only someone who does not understand the field could assert that a noncontroversial construction is somehow "wrong".

Don't try to turn this into an ad hominem argument. This is about what's gramatically correct, not who has what documents hanging on their wall.

It is by no stretch of the imagination "incorrect".

It takes very little imagination to think that an object should be next to its verb.

There is absolutely nothing inherently ambiguous about the construction.

Yes, there is.

There is nothing even remotely ambiguous about common sentences such as "The boy handed the girl a note" or "Our manager gave the new-hires an orientation manual".

The fact that you can come up with situations in which the ambiguity can be easily resolved do nothing to counter the fact that, as I have shown, it is ambiguous. If I say "Mouse cat ate", you can figure out what I mean, but that doesn't mean that the object-subject-verb construction isn't ambiguous, or that it isn't incorrect.

If you care to look at my post, I did not point to "a single ambiguity", but multiple ambiguities compounded by the omission of a preposition.

In the written version, there are only two ambiguities: the S-V-IO-DO construction, and the verb/noun issue. The latter is hardly a major one; English speakers are well-acquainted with the line being blurry. If you say you're in marketing, few will think you are in the business of turning things into markets.

The DO of "tell" is not the person being told.

If it's the indirect object, why don't you need a direct object? There's nothing wrong with the sentence "I told him". When you tell someone, the person is the focus of the verb.

The person being told is the IO.

He can be. But he's not, in your original example.

"Said" does not take an indirect object:

That's true, if you consider "me" not to be an IO in "he said to me, 'I'm sorry for what she's done.' "

(Note to drkitten: I believe that this is something that would fit in your category of "verbs and direct objects being separated by dative prepositional phrases". And by Dylan, no less.)

You have no clue what you're talking about. I recommend that you drop this whole issue right now and read a freshman grammar text. If not, let the clowning begin. You asked for it.

Oooh, argument by intimidation.

 

[epepke]

It's times like this I really wish the moderators here split out threads.

Does an anal discussion of English grammar have diddley squat to do with Einstein?

 

[Piggy]

It's times like this I really wish the moderators here split out threads.

Does an anal discussion of English grammar have diddley squat to do with Einstein?

Sorry, epepke. You're right. My apologies for the hijack. I let my buttons get pushed by the...

 

[drkitten]

Sorry. No need to continue the hijack.