If not Hubie, then who(bie)...
by Pliny the Elder on May 7, 2008 10:55 AM MDT
83 comments
Michael Cooper.
Think about it, a defensive specialist (gave Larry Bird fits) who played on the Showtime Lakers with Magic, Kareem and Worthy, and won 5 rings.
He has plenty of NBA assistant coaching experience, with LA and Denver, headed the Nuggets for a little while, and even coached the LA Sparks to two WNBA championships.
Culturally, he'd be a good match for the Suns, understanding the need to balance fast break offense with good defense, and he's won under the spotlight, suggesting he'd have a cool head where Mike D panicked this year.
I'm still convinced that the squad we have, with a couple of minor adjustments, is a true contender for next years title, particularly if they can get a full pre-season together. We had flashes of it before the playoffs.
Having played on a team that had a similar problem, Coop might be able to figure out how to get Shaq and Nash to work together consistently, without getting in each other's way, and without destroying the beauty of Suns basketball.
[Note by Phoenix Stan, 05/07/08 10:12 AM PDT ]
Bob Young at the AZ Republic did a list of the possible candidates in today's paper.
I think he's on the J-Ho diet plan if he thinks popular but inexperiened player/broadcasters like EJ or Majerle would work. If those guys want to coach they need to pay their dues on the bench and not just go directly from the mic to the clipboard.
I love Pliny's idea of Michael Cooper (despite the Laker's ties) and of the other names Paul Silas jumps out as well.
The next coach can't be a "nobody" that Shaq and Amare aren't going to respect. And at the risk of going all pop pyschology, I think having a 'firm father figure" for Amare is very important.
Let's face it. The guy that calls himself "Black Jesus" is likely going to respond better to someone of his own race.
6 recs |
83 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I like this thought
and he sounds a lot better than Doug Collins.
If we hire EJ, I’ll be very sad. Good player, but reading his blog on Hoopshype often makes me spit out my coffee.
Decision '08: Batum or Alexander
by rosewood on May 7, 2008 11:30 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Wha?
Pardon my sheltered existence, but on what basis do you conclude that Amare would respond better to a black coach, than say, just a tough coach, say a Jackson, Sloan or a Popovich type?
EJ – great guy but no way. We will need a new shooting coach if Weber leaves with D’Antoni.
Silas doesn’t have star power. Cooper, okay, I guess.
Wondering what the skip-2-my-loo to do next with my empty summer
by ZonaFlash on May 7, 2008 11:38 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
No kidding!
If Amare can’t respond to an otherwise good coach irrespective of race, then it’s Amare who needs to grow up or get out. Good lord…
Honestly, this is the difference between the Suns and the Spurs, and more than any other reason, it’s why the run and gun era never got over the hump. All throughout the series, I couldn’t help but notice how the Spurs were all on the same page, just methodically taking care of business without giving a crap about who got the most touches, who the offense ran through, etc. The potential of this team going forward depends heavily on whether or not Amare can grow his mental maturity to match his talent. Based on the words that have a way of slipping out of his mouth, he has a LONG way to go, IMO.
by TexSUN on May 7, 2008 12:05 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
And what about Coach D'Arling
Doesn’t he have to respond to the wishes of his bosses?
You can argue that Amare should be different and should change who he is or that perhaps he should be traded. But assuming he’s staying, I can’t see how finding the right coach for him isn’t key.
Obviously, it is pure speculation on my part that Amare would respond better to a “father figure” to whom he felt more connected (how’s that for using “whom”?) and had the shared background and the common experience as an African American.
Speculation and opinion as to whether that matters to Amare. But if it does matter then I have no problem working with that as opposed to making him change his tune. This is a player’s league right and he’s the franchise. Keep him happy and productive.
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on May 7, 2008 3:00 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Never said he didn't
My response didn’t have anything to do with Coach D’Antoni in particular. Just miffed at the suggestion that the team should make pleasing Amare the #1 priority when finding a new coach—especially to the extent of using race as a criteria (sorry, major hot button with me). If Amare is really that high maintenance, then maybe we shouldn’t be trying to build a championship team around him to begin with.
by TexSUN on May 7, 2008 5:42 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Race could be a factor
but I really think it’s far down the list.
Amare’s complaints are similar to Nash’s or Kerr’s- they were mad they weren’t winning. They all want better defensive coaching. Winning will make people happy.
And yeah, you made the point – D’Antoni doesn’t respond to his bosses, despite that they share the same race.
Wondering what the skip-2-my-loo to do next with my empty summer
by ZonaFlash on May 7, 2008 6:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way - he doesn't have a hard enough mentality
He’s too nice. I good guy, a smart guy, but again more offensively focused and even more laid back than D’Antoni.
Wondering what the skip-2-my-loo to do next with my empty summer
by ZonaFlash on May 7, 2008 12:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amare is the only unknown..
Shaq worked with Coop during the Del Harris years in LA. but Shaq is going to have to babysit Amare.
In any case, I wouldn’t have any problem with Paul Silas. He’s a very good coach. I just don’t want any of the retreads.
Mike’s problem wasn’t in being laid back.. it was hubris and being stubborn. Now I blame Steve Kerr for having a heavy hand in dealing with Mike, but still… Mike is one of those stubborn guys who has to figure things out for himself, rather than accepting criticism.
I tell you this: Bill Sharman would have figured out how to get Mike to be more defensively oriented.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 7, 2008 12:13 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
(who)bie, not (whom)bie, but that's a grammar lesson for another day
Why not take the Spurs assistant? I don’t even know his name. He won’t cost much, and you can blame the coming collapse on him. Plus, as Bob Young said, if it hurts the Spurs, you gotta like it.
(Right now, though, it’s looking as if the Spurs aren’t going to be the nemesis of the future. It would be totally Suns-like to meet them in the playoffs again next year, beat them (finally!), and then get trounced in the next round by Los Angeles or New Orleans.)
by beatcal on May 7, 2008 3:00 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
no it's whom..
trust me on this topic. The grammar rule is as follows:
If you write a clause that evokes he/she as the reply, then you use who.
If you write a clause that evokes him/her then whom is correct.
i.e
Whom would you choose as MVP? Steve Nash, I’d choose him.
Who is the biggest punk-ass in the NBA. Kobe, he’s the worst.
The colloquial use of who comes from the fact that the reply can come in both forms:
Who would you choose as MVP?, Steve Nash, he’s the best.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 7, 2008 3:16 PM MDT reply actions 2 recs
I was going to flag this
as a violation of our anti-spelling anti-grammar nitpicking laws.
But it was too good. I rec’d it instead.
Wondering what the skip-2-my-loo to do next with my empty summer
by ZonaFlash on May 7, 2008 6:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I though Hubie or who(bie) made the catchier title! =)
Wondering what the skip-2-my-loo to do next with my empty summer
by ZonaFlash on May 7, 2008 6:14 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, neither of your are correct
There are no verbs, so you cannot tell which form is correct. There’s not even punctuation, so it’s not clear what kind of “sentence,” it should be.
But this “sentence,” which is really an elliptical clause if anything, could read:
If not Hubie, then he will work.
If not Hubie, then we will pick him.
Either works. There is no correct answer. You can’t have subjects or objects without verbs.
Decision '08: Batum or Alexander
by rosewood on May 7, 2008 6:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny.
I correct grammar, and make a typo in title. Sweet.
Decision '08: Batum or Alexander
by rosewood on May 7, 2008 6:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
And in my correction.
I love finals week.
Decision '08: Batum or Alexander
by rosewood on May 7, 2008 6:33 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, it is an elliptical clause..
but the verb (in this case, the verb “to choose” or even “to exist”) is inferred.
I guess the correct usage depends on how one expands the clause. But I just can’t think of a natural expansion that doesn’t use the word him.
I know “whom” is becoming archaic, and I was just trying to be funny by channelling a little Sideshow Bob.
But I hate to be corrected, especially if there’s a chance I’m wrong.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 7, 2008 7:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Natural expansion:
“If not Hubie, then who (will work)?” You wouldn’t say “him will work.”
You weren’t wrong in the headline though. There just wasn’t a right.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 7, 2008 7:34 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
but..
I was thinking about the first part which is also elliptical..
We wouldn’t say “if not we”.. we’d say “if not us”.
and probably say “If not him” instead of “If not he”
the expansion I came up with:
If Hubie is not the new coach, then who/whom should we choose?
This is cool, though. But I couldn’t find a single example of usage on a grammar website.
I guess the answer depends on which side of the Atlantic the question is asked.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 7, 2008 7:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The expansion
“If Hubie is not the new coach, then whom should we choose”
We’re talking about the he/him distinction as if it were the rule, but it’s only a proxy for the rule. The rule is if the form will be an object (i.e. receives the action of a transitive verb), then you use “whom.” If it’s a subject, you use “who.”
So the examples “if not we” versus “if not us” don’t answer any questions because we still don’t have a verb. If you had a verb, you could just as easily say “If we will not” as “If it is not us.”
Now it is true that likely you wouldn’t say “if not we,” but this is more a product of colloquial usage then grammatical accuracy. It’s like how people don’t say “It is I” even though that is (likely) technically correct. Reason? It sounds stupid, and grammar isn’t all that important.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 7, 2008 8:23 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Object
See, if you had mentioned the rule first, there wouldn’t have been all the discussion.
The rule, followed by an example, is a preferable pedagogical plan. However, we would not have had the discourse here, providing a tutorial for the readers.
But, then again, what else is there to talk about?
I think we should have a grammar section. For example, I love EJ, but sometimes when I hear him speak (or read his blog, like someone else mentioned) I wince a wee bit. I thought he was supposed to be a role model (he is, actually, and he is someone to whom I look up (nothing dangling here, just numerous unnecessary clauses), but I’d like to see better broadcasting) Encouraging proper English will benefit us all. Perhaps we could educate the masses?
There has to be a creative way to use basketball to help other learn grammar. There is also likely a market for the capitalistic venture.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 7, 2008 9:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Encouraging "proper" English
also leads to language inefficiency that’s corrected by users.
Some prescriptive grammar is good. Some is not, and what is not is almost always corrected given a broad enough population.
Constructions like “I be workin” and “y’all” are both great evidence of this. They’re generally frowned upon, but are, in fact, useful innovations.
Spelling is a better example. Nite is better than night. U is better than you. Tuff is better than tough. The only thing that prevents these innovations is an irrational fear of language chaos.
Pronunciation is another example. People smooth out difficult articulations. This is why I call my mother’s sister “ant” rather than “aunt.” American English collapses toward the schwa. Of course, this pisses people off, and they say “you wouldn’t say it’s hanted house,” but that ignores words like “laugh.”
When I used to teach English, I had a large banner above my board that had this quotation from Noam Chomsky, who, before he was political radical, was probably the most important linguist of the 20th century.
“In fact, a good deal of what’s taught is taught because it’s wrong. You don’t have to teach people their native language because it grows in their minds, but if you want people to say, "He and I were here" and not "Him and me were here," then you have to teach them because it’s probably wrong.”
Smart, smart man.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 7, 2008 10:43 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's mostly cultural, btw..
Language that is considered stuffy here, is perfectly normal back in England.
And Brits consider bad grammar and mispronunciation to be more than just intellectual laziness, but down right bad manners, and a sign of social inferiority. Actually, if you want to get a Brit off on a tirade, using American English is a good way to do it.
Of course, the rules over there can get a little twisted. If you’re a real snob, and in with the fox hunting crowd, the word Cholmondeley is pronounced “Chumly”, and it’s a way for the aristocrats to identify themselves to each other.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 8, 2008 2:07 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Culture
What he’s talking about isn’t cultural. He’s talking about language as a universal phenomenon. While it is true that certain cultures place more emphasis prescriptivist grammar (the French are the worst), those cultures are simply getting it more wrong.
It’s now standard among linguists/lexicographers (in any country) that while prescriptivism may have cultural importance (it’s worth knowing since it has such broad use/history) it certainly is not better than “incorrect” forms of speaking.
Now you’ll still have literature or other kinds of professors who are stuck on these kinds of rules, which do have a misunderstood place in an academic environment. But I tend to think we should be going with the opinions of those experts who study language empirically to determine what it is rather than the opinions of those who simply decree what is should be.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 8, 2008 3:45 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, I was replying to your first point
about encouraging proper English, not your point about Chomsky.
I’m not in any way a linguist, but naively I’m not sure that one could say with any conviction that cultures that emphasize “correct” grammar are inherently wrong or right, given how the grammar and vocabulary of a language like French or English evolve over time. Surely, a language is what it’s speakers speak or write at any given time.
How do Chomskys’ ideas apply to a language like Chinese and it’s ideograms ? And if the ability to acquire language is universal and inherent, why do native Chinese speakers have such difficulty in learning English (and vice versa)?
Since you seem to know something about this, I’m genuinely curious about those questions and also how one would go about studying language empirically, and what that actually means. In Experimental Physics one can measure a quantity, and assert a margin of error, eg. the distance between our Sun and some random star is 100,000 light years to a margin of 0.5%. What would the equivalent be in Empirical Linguistics ?
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 8, 2008 5:59 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotcha. Understood.
Okay then, a few things to answer your questions:
1) I didn’t say it right to say that they’re more wrong. What I meant was that the general prescriptive idea that they’re are correct and incorrect usages is generally wrong. Thus, the more a school/teacher/culture emphasizes this, the more they’re misunderstanding some basic facts about language. Now I say “generally” because they’re some usages that are always going to be wrong (though they’ll vary depending on a particular language’s syntax).
An example for English: Noun Clause “Onion” Sentences.
It’s perfectly understandable to say, “The bird flew away” and if you add in a noun clause to modify “The bird” you’ll still be fine. So you can say “The bird/ the cat scratched/ flew away.”
But if you add one more noun clause, which is for prescriptive syntax purposes correct, the sentence becomes incomprehensible. “The bird/ the cat/ the dog chased/ scratched/ flew away.” Note that “the bird the cat scratched flew away” and “the cat the dog chased scratched” are both fine, but combined this syntactically correct sentence is incomprehensible. That’s what a linguist would call poor usage. Something like double negative clauses, however, such as “I ain’t got no money,” are fine, since, despite what your junior high teachers told you, no one has trouble understanding them.
2) About English and Chinese: Put the easiest way: there is no increased difficulty for a child speaker of Chinese, as opposed to Norwegian (a very English like language), to move to English. For an adult or teen, however, there would be a difference. The actual cognitive mechanism changes, and the increased sensitivity to language and intuitive grammatical deduction capacity that children (i mean, little 2-3 year olds) have is gone. So when you’re older you have to work backward by learning rules and lexicon. Thus, because Chinese and English are very different (though, like all languages, they share some core elements) adults moving between them have more difficulty than adults moving between Norwegian and English.
The “universality” of grammar is based on this toddler ability to deduce and generate complex grammatical structures from limited evidence. Thus, linguists (to varying degrees) hypothesize how much/what is innate to the human brain. There is no argument that nothing is, however.
3) Empirical studies: Linguistics is a “soft” science, like psychology or sociology. So it doesn’t generally have empirical evidence like chemistry, except perhaps in some branches like neurolinguistics (which parts of the brain are responsible for what) and phonology (how we make the sounds). Outside of that, you find several categories, such as description and clinical studies.
Description is really just that. Going out and finding out how people use language. It’s useful to find out how languages solve similar problems and to see what works. Some things do not exist in language: such as a grammar without subject. Others exist and are used frequently but people, for some reason, are under the impression that they are less effective or incoherent (double negatives, the passive voice). Dictionaries are also a great example. Sometimes people misunderstand dictionary to be a style-book for how a word should be used. Instead, they’re a repository for how a word is used i.e. if enough people start using queer to mean gay it will mean that.
Clinical studies are generally psychological-type experiments to examine how certain syntactical variations/pronunciations etc. affect comprehension. A really cool example of this is the McGurk effect.
http://www.media.uio.no/personer/arntm/McGurk_english.html
Check that out. Very cool
There’s a lot, lot more. But it would take way more time/space then i should commit.
Hope that helps.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 8, 2008 7:24 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for that... very cool.
I have a couple of followups..
re 2) Chinese vs English
My understanding of what Chomsky proposed is that there are specific mechanisms to deal with syntax (his Universal Grammar) that are pre-wired, in much the same way that some instincts in animals are. What’s not clear to me, is why the ability to learn language should ever fade over time if it’s inherently hard-wired.
It’s clear though, that there is some contextual issue here. People are perfectly capable of learning significant new vocabulary as they age, if that vocabulary is linked to the persons native language. It’s much harder to learn and retain even individual words in a new language.
However, if the ability to learn language is tied to more general associative learning mechanisms, such as the ability to conceptualize through visual cues (eg apple -> purple polka dot apple), then that would more easily explain why it is more difficult to learn a second language once you’d learned a first, and why words associated with the native language are easier to learn than foreign ones.
Moreover, assuming that both Chomsky and Rodney Brooks are correct (and I am a Brooksian), then there should be a neurophysiological structure such as a lobe in the brain that would be responsible for syntax, similar to those lobes responsible for certain emotions and abilities. I’m not sure that such a structure has been found yet.
chinese vs english pt 2.
My limited understanding of chinese & japanese is that its syntactic structure is very different to english, where ideograms represent ideas and concepts rather than phonetic words and clauses, and which is why chinese->english machine translation is so difficult. The question then is if the syntactic structures are hardwired, how do languages such as chinese and japanese arise in the first place.
thanks for your patience on this
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 8, 2008 8:07 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
All right
1) About brain locale: look up Broca’s aphasia vs. Wernicke’s aphasia. There are two main (small) regions of the brain that are relevant to the mind. And when they are damaged in adults the resulting effects are much different. In Broca’s aphasia, you get semantically meaningful sentences without syntactical form. Phrase structure goes away. In Wernicke’s aphasia, you get syntactically sound sentences that are often meaningless.
Also of note: if children (like babies, two year olds) have these areas damaged, their brains will adapt and no deficiency will occur. There’s a plasticity to the infant mind.
which leads to two…
2) The kind of hard-wiring talked about by guys like Chomsky and more importantly Steven Pinker (who’s improved on Chomsky) is a product in large part of the developing infant mind. Once this development is over the structures have been lost. Then you’re in the realm of psychology/cognition, which is different. People still hypothesize that their are critical periods here as well that are irrevocably passed, but you’re no longer talking about Chomsky universal grammar nativism. That’s a different argument.
3) Chomsky/Pinker aren’t talking about semantic acquisition. There’s a ton of evidence that that happens closer to what you’re talking about. The argument is for grammatical structure. Semantic acquisition is a whole different ball game.
4) Universal Grammar and later theories all hinge on the idea of a set of binary parameters that a child intuitively knows. So once they hear that a language does not associate subjects with tensed verbs or subjects form with verb or auxilary phrases, they know subsequent formations from there. So the variations of Chinese and English are really just coding variations from the same set of parameters. there’s a good book called “The Atoms of Language” by Mark Baker that gets into this idea in a fairly reader-friendly mainstream kind of way.
Note not all linguists subscribe to this form of nativism. For some they think it’s just more a form a advanced cognitive attunement. Like kids are just hyperfocused. It’s a fairly large debate.
5) When you’re talking about Mandarin, remember that ideograms are their written language not their spoken language. The two are different. Their spoken language, though it has tone, is relatively very much like ours as far as semantics goes. The written language, however, is vastly different.
Hope this helps. And sorry to everyone else for our nerdfest.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 8, 2008 8:57 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please. Make it stop...
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on May 8, 2008 9:20 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Oh, come on.
It’s not like it’s hurting anything. This post is almost a day old anyway. Shouldn’t the b-ball discussion have already moved on?
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 8, 2008 9:26 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok then
If the people want to speak on this topic then I am all for that…just expect my brains to be found all over the floor if I have to read too many of this types of posts...
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on May 8, 2008 10:55 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
dude.. this is what happens when..
you mess with another dudes’ fanpost title.. :)
making your head explode by making you think too hard. Think Scanners, but without Michael Ironside
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 8, 2008 10:13 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt
this is all my fault….
in my IRL job I have litterally a team of copyeditors that I can use to fix whatever random mess I might happen to create.
Clearly, whatever strengths I might have do not lie (lay?) in the area of grammar and being far removed from an academic environment its not something that is a….key driving force….in my life.
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on May 8, 2008 10:53 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, not always
The only thing that prevents these innovations is an irrational fear of language chaos.
While there is something to the evolution of language, time-tested language adds stability to the world. Well, at least the world of law, where I live.
Innovations sometimes backfire and that is why things take time to evolve. I can give examples, but that would bore eveyone to tears.
Further, using “U” (at least to me) is often associated with internet and text-message short speak which is a mix between a reflection of the impact of MTV (and other things) and an active degradation of the mind.
It is taught because it’s wrong, the permanenance of the wrongness has some value to it.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 8, 2008 10:09 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
“While there is something to the evolution of language…”
This is like saying “While there’s something to gravity…” Language is in constant flux. Always has been. Always will be. Granted, people will always argue for stability, but that’s more a product of latent class bias or pretension (your association of “U” with a “degradation” of the mind) than linguistic effectiveness or reality. People don’t need rules to communicate. They do it fine on their own.
Now, of course, law is a special case that exposes the inevitable shortcomings of written language and leaves people like Scalia arguing with people like Dworkin about a problem that, likely, cannot be solved. But that’s a whole new argument.
Fun.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 8, 2008 10:35 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re-Think this part
"While there is something to the evolution of language…"
Would more appopriately be phrased, “While there is something for the evolution of the understanding of gravity.”
Language is the way we express thoughts, and our understanding of the symbols change. The understanding of the law of gravit does change, but does gravity.
And, anyway, you’re mixing apples and oranges.
Language is meant to develop as we progress—gravity just does what it does.
My point is that if something does work, even inefficiently, then there is a danger to changing it.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 8, 2008 2:24 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
But language is more than just usage
it’s a social mechanism too. A means by which some people can achieve identity.
I can’t remember exactly where this happened (and it’s a famous case study), but I think it was in the Carolinas: There is a populated island that was isolated from the mainland, and the only means to get there was by boat. The people of this island had developed a distinct local accent. Eventually a bridge was built joining the island with the mainland, and what happened was that islanders started to lose their local way of talking, and started talking like mainlanders. This persisted for a while, about a year, until all of a sudden, the old dialect made a strong reappearance. Turns out the islanders wanted their own sense of identify, and their dialect was the means to achieve it.
And this happens all the time.. if you’ve ever been to the Appennines in Italy, every village it seems has it’s own dialect. It’s why the city of Alghero in Sardinia has 4 official languages, why the Cajuns still speak an archaic form of French, and why the Welsh still speak their ancient language.
Where I would disagree with Rosewood, is the notion that efficiency of communication transcends all other considerations.
It’s also a means to transmit ideas and concepts. Correctness has a very important place, because it resolves ambiguity if all the parties involved in the conversation are correct.
After all, you wouldn’t want to be in surgery, and hear the surgeon say something like: “Oh my, he’s got a massively ruptured doodangle. Nurse, give the patient about two fingers of wacky juice to make him sleep, and give me the whatchamacallit and some thread so we can cut this sucker out”. You’d want the surgeon to be precise in that situation.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 8, 2008 3:01 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's what I tried to say originally
But, you know, words are imperfect and stuff.
If its “old” and “wrong”, but everyone agrees on it, then keep using it. It has value because everyone perceives it in the same manner. Those who do not, did not pay attention in class.
The Welsh (and other Celts in that neighborhood) just refuse to speak English because they’re all a little racist over the slight pigmentation differences and choice of booze.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 8, 2008 4:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Welsh speak Welsh because they don't want to be English..
and who could blame them :) Their fear is of being assimilated.
But choice of language matters, and we see this in computer science all the time. Nearly all computer languages can be expressed in context-free or near context-free grammars, and all of them are Turing complete. But some things are just easier to do in some languages than others.
Let me make another assertion to illustrate my point: There are no good rock and roll songs in Chinese.
Now, there are 1.6 Billion Chinese, and they’re an industrious and artistic people, but for the life of me I can’t think of a single Chinese language song that made the top-30 in any music chart in the West, be it in the US, UK or any other country.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 8, 2008 5:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Social value
1) Language does have social value, but that social value doesn’t contribute, necessarily, to that language’s value as language.
As applied to “proper” English: the core value of prescriptive grammar is that it maintain social stratum. People feel like they know the rules; therefore they are educated; therefore they are smart. If you know them too, that’s great, because now we both know we’re smart and better. Nevermind, the fact that rules are generally arbitrary and don’t actually aid communciation, thus there’s nothing especially smart about them.
But anything that maintains class bias tends to stick around for a long, long time.
2) About Chinese rock music: Well, one you have a mass media that’s still state controlled, so that doesn’t help establish a “rock n roll” culture. Also, they have different musical tastes.
None of this has to do with language. That’s not relevant. Language doesn’t change a person’s ability to play power chords.
Also, the fact that that Chinese mainstream music (much of which is very good; I lived in China for awhile) doesn’t appear in Western pop charts is really more the product of cultural divide. I mean, what other non-English songs do you see on the US charts? Maybe some Spanish songs. We have a lot of Spanish speakers. Do you see any French songs or Italian songs or Portuguese songs or Russian songs?
This is a strange point you’re making to say the least. I don’t understand at all what is has to do with language.
3) Language efficiency: this does dictate the growth of language most fundamentally. Simply put: methods that don’t work won’t last. Look to the onion sentence I posted above. Things like that don’t exist even though common grammar doesn’t forbid them. Reason? They’re incomprehensible. But supposedly bad construction like “I be needin” or double negatives have stuck around precisely because they’re as effective as anything else.
This doesn’t mean we’ll achieve optimum communication, but what it does mean is that forms that don’t work either never appear or fall away (the bar on split infinitives). Other inefficient or abitrary forms may stick around, but this is because the have value exterior to communicative effectiveness that outweighs their general awkwardness.
So the real point: if it exists, it works. Thus, the problem with “proper” English is that it thinks it’s better. Luckily, over time, this idea is losing more and more steam.
Thank God for the progress of ideas.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 8, 2008 7:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chinese rock & roll songs
I didn’t mean to imply that any Chinese music is bad, merely that neither Mandarin nor Cantonese lend themselves well to the form we call rock & roll in a way “that travels”, for want of a better phrase.
When I was in Hong Kong, many years ago, I’d hear a lot of Cantonese r&r, but once I’d gotten to Korea or Japan, I’d hear none of that. Otoh, I’d hear the Beatles, Stones, Bowie and Zeppelin everywhere.
There are plenty of examples of French, Italian and German r&r (including it’s various subforms including punk, grunge, prog, glam, etc….) songs hitting the charts all over the world, as opposed to just songs in English (Jane Birkin & Serge Gainsbourg, Johnny Halliday, Plastic Bertrand, Zucchero, Nena, Dr Cornelius, Yellow Magic Orchestra, just to name a few artists who have charted in the West with native language songs). If you go to Sweden & Finland, you’ll hear r&r songs in Russian too.
I was just trying to illustrate that language isn’t generic, but evolves locally to be tailored or streamlined for a given use. And if you wanted to perform a task, such as writing a r&r song, then there are better and worse choices for the job.
And I would just take slight issue with your last point. It’s not proper English that thinks it’s better. It’s that people who speak proper English (or any other language), think they’re better than anybody else, and their adherence to correctness is one of the ways they show it, and distinguish themselves from others (i.e answer the command “prove you’re one of us, and not one of them”)
People are generally compelled to form groups. Language is a way they organize themselves. I know it’s silly, but as a species we haven’t evolved yet to the point where we can put this crap behind. And, I for one, am not holding my breath waiting for the change to happen anytime soon.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 8, 2008 8:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point 3
Seems to me that deals more with the verbal word than the written word.
Some of the best oratory does not translate well into the written word.
The value of the written word (and its clarity) is way off the subject, but I think some of the discussion is disconnected because of this difference.
Speaking of Kanji (I don’t know what the word is in Chinese), I do know some Japanese persons. The written Kanji is so different than the spoken word. The spoken word depends on the gender of the speaker and, sometimes, seemingly crazy things. I cannot list them all, but I know that some words are acceptable or insulting depending on the relative social status of the persons in the conversation. Of course, pointing out an insult is, in and of itself rude, so you’d really never know.
So, the context of the spoken word versus the context (or relative lack thereof) has a good deal to do with what is “proper” English.
I’m thinking that the “efficiency” discussion really goes to idioms and colloquial poor English; whereas, it is different in the written word. The “efficiency” point of the written word does not go to things like allowing double negative or shortening the spelling of words (i.e., “tuff” or “tough”), but to the use of the words. At one point in time, flowing prose with innumberable clauses, commas and semicolons was dramatic and was good writing. Today, especially in more popular literature, one tends to see shorter and simpler sentence and paragraph structure, but they still follow the accepted rules (maybe that’s just the Ivy-League editors justifying their existence, though).
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 9, 2008 11:17 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
or more succinctly..
Hubie, if not him, then who/whom ?
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 7, 2008 8:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow...whom knew this would provoke such a discussion?
Yes, I’m kidding with that “whom knew.”
As for the original title, previous commenters are correct; it depends on how you fill in the blanks. I was thinking, “If it’s not going to be Hubie, then who is it going to be?”
“Who” is correct there. (Even though it sounds awkward, you would say, “It is going to be he,” and so by extension you would use “who.”)
But if you’re thinking, “If we’re not going to choose Hubie, then whom will we choose?”, then you’d be thinking correctly.
So, I stand partially corrected.
(I think the tie goes to the better headline, though, which is, “If not Hubie, then who(bie)?”)
by beatcal on May 7, 2008 9:10 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
My original title was..
If not Hubie, then whom..
a follow up on an earlier post.
But Stan changed the title. He’s a much funnier fellow than I.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 7, 2008 6:18 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to delete this whole post
and flag all ya all for carrying on nitpicking. Worse than spurs yall are!
Wondering what the skip-2-my-loo to do next with my empty summer
by ZonaFlash on May 7, 2008 9:22 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
But
you were recommended them earlier.
Zona, what do you want!
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 7, 2008 9:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
recommending
If you’re out and you see my brain, please tell it to come home after it sobers up.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 7, 2008 9:52 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
but its the offseason
not much else to do I guess.
Wondering what the skip-2-my-loo to do next with my empty summer
by ZonaFlash on May 7, 2008 9:22 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
we could actually focus on who the next coach should be??
Coop ?
Anybody else ?
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 7, 2008 10:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who should the next coach be?
That depends. Do you think this team is still a title contender for the next couple of years? If so, then you need one kind of coach. Or do you think the team is a non-contender but still a playoff team, no matter who the coach is (my view, by the way)? Then you probably need another kind of coach. Or, finally, do you think this team is going to be stripped for parts this summer, with a long, painful rebuilding process to have begun in earnest by next November (highly unlikely, if you ask me)? In that case, you probably need a third kind of coach.
by beatcal on May 7, 2008 10:30 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
For better or worse
I’m thinking Doug Collins.
But I’m for Isiah. We could use his help in the draft for a couple of years.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 7, 2008 10:47 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
We DO need Isiah...in New York
He’s the only guy who would take Boris Diaw’s contract.
Don’t know if you listen to Jim Rome, but one of his more famous callers said, “Got a Hyundai? Call Zeke. He’ll give you two Porsche Boxsters for it.”
by beatcal on May 8, 2008 7:14 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did I not make this clear?
16 hours at work and I come home, hoping to let my brain relax with visions of Michael Cooper dancing in my head and instead, I’m greeted with the Elements of Style. Ouch. And, given Pliny’s explanation, it’s “who.”
And on topic, Coop wouldn’t have occurred to me, but barring ridiculous success (i.e., a ring), I couldn’t help but think of him as a place holder until the old guys on our roster go away and the re-building begins in earnest.
by Mike Lisboa on May 8, 2008 2:27 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
What I didn't make clear...
16 hour workdays eff with one’s ability to think. Please refrain from tangential linguistic discourse as it significantly inconveniences me, the only person you should be thinking about when you comment. You ladies and gentlemen are so selfish.
by Mike Lisboa on May 8, 2008 2:29 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn.
I had a whole post ready comparing generative grammar to improvisational ball-handling.
You ruin everything, Mike.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 8, 2008 5:25 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
That would be interesting
I think we’ve found the content for the left side bar!
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 8, 2008 10:11 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry bubba.. no dice..
it’s 5:30 in the morning, I was up till 3 writing a research paper and now I can’t sleep.
And I have an important conf-call at 10. Have to keep my mind active with thinky stuff. The Fox and CNN news bimbos are not enough to keep me going. This used to be so easy when I was 35 :(
Anyway you’re partially right about Coop being a short term choice, but I think it all depends on how well Steve Kerr does his GM job, and how well he’ll do with the available money in 2 years. It seems to me, come hell or high water that he’s thinking of a rebuild effort starting in 2 years, whatever happens. If Kerr is able to keep his core together, rebuild with continuity, and Amare grows up, Coop would have a similar situation that Phil Jackson had, but without the drama and a much shorter and shallower lull. That’s an attractive situation for an organization, if it can be achieved.
While winning a championship with this roster is a strong possibility, I don’t think that a “must win a title” mindset is viable. The only thing this team has to do under the new coach is not underachieve and not take any unforced backward steps. Do that, and the new coach survives, at least through the rebuild.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 8, 2008 6:26 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Same Here
Doug Collins…
"Basketball doesn't build character. It reveals it"
by PanamaSun on May 8, 2008 7:39 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm really getting interested in
the Thibodeau option.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 8, 2008 7:41 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
And while we're on the subject of proper English...
remember Paul Westphal used to teach Shakespeare at La Salle, before he went to the Lakers.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 8, 2008 10:18 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I bet
His halftime speeches were fun.
Sven to Benfica! Please, please, please!
by rosewood on May 8, 2008 10:45 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently he used to quote Macbeth to Magic Johnson in timeouts
and I’m told Magic responded to him like a dog who’d just been shown a card trick.
Head tilted to one side, and a look of utter glass eyed confusion.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 8, 2008 3:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is Del Harris not on this list?
Worked under Don Nelson for years, and might bring a little more defense…
by Toddy on May 8, 2008 11:18 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Is he still alive?
Seriously. I thought he died.
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on May 8, 2008 12:32 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Best discussion ever. LMAO.
Wondering what the skip-2-my-loo to do next with my empty summer
by ZonaFlash on May 8, 2008 1:56 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Seriously
I feel like a dumb jock…
Blogging Suns Basketball
by Phoenix Stan on May 8, 2008 6:22 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have a lot of smart people here
I’m so proud! LOL
"Basketball doesn't build character. It reveals it"
by PanamaSun on May 9, 2008 6:55 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Suns fans. Some names to throw out there...
As a Bulls fan I’m quite honestly hopeful that D’Antoni comes to the Windy City. And honestly, I can’t believe that the Suns’ front office situation has even come to this kind of a standoff-type situation with D’Antoni. Any thoughts on how the heck this all happened (aside from what’s been covered on ESPN.com, and particularly, on Chad Forde’s podcast with Marc Stein)?
Anyway, here’s how I’ve gotta be thinking if I’m the Suns. Cooper’s ok, but he’s more of a defensive specialist. EJ, I agree, doesn’t always come across as that astute on his hoops hype blog (he did, however, predict that the Wallace-to-Bulls move was a big mistake).
Hubie’s too old—he collapsed for a couple of seconds while coaching a Grizzlies’ game, prompting him to step down… two years ago.
So here are my thoughts:
1) the American coach of the Russian team who just won the Euro championship;
2) Mark Price – the guy has assistant coaching experience and was something of a Steve Nash prototype;
3) what’s Tom Chambers doing these days?
4) Go for the figurehead big name, like Rudy T., and then have an assistant coach essentially take care of the entire offense. Rudy T. would be there for defense and to support the assistant in charge of offense, especially for the post-up/kick-out offense, and working with Shaq and Amare is not a bad dropoff from working with Hakeem. I believe that Indiana fared quite well when they installed Bird as figurehead coach and an x’s and o’s genius (Carlysle) as the assistant in charge of offense. (Pay no attention to the fact that Carlysle has become emblematic of slow-down, grind-out, no-creativity offense; at the time, he was great under Bird).
5) Any young and up-coming Euroball coach or assistant coach.
Your thoughts?
P.S. – In the past I have been a huge fan of the Suns as an organization and am perplexed to see what Sarver’s doing to them.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
by bullhockey on May 9, 2008 10:03 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Rudy T and Euro Guys
I kind of thought about him a few days ago, but he stepped down a while ago and never really seemed to re-surface. Seems to me that’s an indication that he’s done.
I don’t see Kerr plucking anyone who’s major experience is outside of the US—at least not right now.
Mmmmm ... Guinness
by JSun on May 9, 2008 11:20 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coop
Wasn’t he a failed experiment in Denver a few years back? Or am I thinking of someone else…?
by KJ7 on May 9, 2008 12:19 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Coop had a limited run in Denver before George Karl
by that measure, though, you could say that Mike D should never have gotten the Suns job.
"True glory consists of doing what deserves to be written, and writing what deserves to be read".
by Pliny the Elder on May 9, 2008 12:29 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
By the way... Cotton?
...wouldn’t this have just been the perfect time for Steve Kerr and Mike D’Antoni to dust off Cotton Fitzsimmons, rest his soul? Bring in a familiar Suns face and stabilizing force to buy time while they figure out what the heck to do with this squad. Cotton was smart enough to have come up with a game plan to play not to embarrass the guys and popular enough to not catch heat if they came up short.
While it would have been tantamount to hanging a “Suns Reclamation Project To Be Completed in 2010. Your ticket money at work!” sign outside US Airways Center, it would have set the bar at a near perfect place from a publicity standpoint and given them a (two-year?) window to align a roster/real head coach/blueprint.
P.S. – I have to find and scan a picture of my room from my teen years where a poster of a Cotton Fitzsimmons portrait (painted, not photographed) is hanging prominently in the background. That’s right, a Cotton Fitzimmons portrait.
by Mike Lisboa on May 9, 2008 1:05 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Jeff Bzdelik
I think Cooper took over for him, right? What do you guys think of him? Is he still floating around the league right now? I can’t seem to remember much about him.
Also, I heard on the radio this morning (1060am) that there is speculation about Vinny Del Negro coming out of the front office to be the Head Coach and signing Del Harris as his assistant. I think that’s interesting. I like Harris as an assistant, but not too sure about Del Negro as the HC.
by KJ7 on May 12, 2008 1:21 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
