Schneier on Security

tommy • May 5, 2011 3:04 AM

Shouldn’t there have been a contingency plan in case the groom got cold feet and tried to flee the altar?

I found the meaning of Bruce’s first sentence to be obvious at first glance. To satisfy those demanding subjunctive/conditional tense, realize that ellipses are very common in all speech and writing except the very formal (research papers, etc., though they’re showing up there too these days), and therefore, that “the article about…” was implied by the context:

“Wouldn’t it be great if this were not a joke: the article about the security contingency that was in place… ”

I realize that skills in cryptography and in syntax may not overlap perfectly, and that Facetwit eng is tkng ovr TW, but was disappointed at the dissenters. This is why “prescriptivists” insist on everyone playing by the same grammatical rules (Bruce passes), but are derided by “descriptivists”, who declare that answering the phone inquiry with “This is he” is stuffy and outdated, and that “so long as people know what you mean, who cares?”

Most famous example of ambiguity in pop music: hit song by Johnny Maestro & The Brooklyn Bridge, “The Worst That Could Happen”:

(Male singer): “Girl, if he loves you more than me… ”

What he meant: “Girl, if he loves you more than I (love you)….”

What he actually said, literally: “Girl, if he loves you more than (he loves) me…”

Kinky, but I’m sure that’s not what they intended back then (40+ years ago).

This all boils down to choosing correctly either the subjective or objective pronoun, as the case may be. More rules for that in the link in the sig, and more “articles” about proper usage in the writer’s home page, linked from his name at the top of the linked original posting.

tommy • May 5, 2011 7:57 PM

@ Dirk Praet:

I confess to not having read the article, counting on Bruce to have summarized the pertinent part; presumably, a plan for HRH’s bolting might have gotten a mention from Bruce.

On the other hand, you are incorrect in the example you cite of double negatives as intensifiers. That is the rule in, say, Spanish, but is considered totally substandard in English. Generally, it’s the mark of either a very uneducated speaker, or of a speaker of ESL (English as a Second Language), often from cultures such as the Hispanic, where double negative intensifiers are correct.

From your comment, “…quite common in at least several languages I know of, among which Afrikaans and my own dialect.”, I infer that English is not your native language. If you wish to be regarded as a speaker of English at the professional level, use adverbs for intensifiers:

“We definitely don’t need education.”
(absolutely, completely, etc.)

Bruce’s use of a double negative was to negate a negation, NOT as an intensifier, and therefore, correct. “I would never say that she lacks charm” = “I would say that she possesses charm”. See the difference? (It’s a variant of “litotes” — check that out in, say, Wikipeda.)

Also, it is risky for non-native speakers to correct others in the non-native language, unless you’re a professor of English or something similar. I believe you owe “d” an apology.

Thank you for the correction on the original article from the OP.

@ BRUCE: Don’t you feel completely reassured now? 🙂 🙂 ;-D