Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Knowledge and How-To


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-17-2010, 11:46 AM   #1 (permalink)
Functionally Appropriate
 
fresnelly's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
On vs. Upon

Are there strong rules for the use of either "on" or "upon" in a sentence?

Is it just a matter of style and formality or is there a concrete reason to use one or the other?

I know you can't start a story "Once on a time..."

However, these examples don't quite have the same dissonance to my ear:

"I can make adjustments based on/upon your suggestions."
"The cat is on/upon my head!"
"On/upon reflection, I'm going to side with the watermelon."

What are your thoughts on/upon this?
__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life
fresnelly is offline  
Old 09-17-2010, 11:53 AM   #2 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Both on and upon are prepositions meaning essentially the same thing.

Upon is merely more formal; however, uses such as "once upon a time," "row upon row," and "the autumn is upon us" are idiomatic and thus the alternative seems unnatural and jarring.

In all your examples, either word would work fine, but you will notice that upon sounds more formal.


With files from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-17-2010, 11:57 AM   #3 (permalink)
The Reforms
 
Jetée's Avatar
 
Location: Rarely, if ever, here or there, but always in transition
I was raised to speak (proper / homeland) English, so upon was engrained within my early vocabularium.

Now, living in North America for some time, it's become more of a personal preference, and as you were wise to point out, a matter of perceived agreeable dissonance.


To make it easy though, the resident desktop encyclo- offered me (you, us all) this definition for upon:

Quote:
prep.
On. See Usage Note at on.
__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.
Mohandas K. Gandhi
Jetée is offline  
Old 09-17-2010, 11:58 AM   #4 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by fresnelly View Post
I know you can't start a story "Once on a time..."
Tell that to Winnie the Pooh author, A. A. Milne, who wrote a book entitled Once on a Time....

EDIT:
As an aside: language and how usage evolves is kinda funny. For example, we all know that (now cheap) phrasing used in mysteries and thrillers: "...when all of a sudden...."

What if I told you that older texts used something different? Try this on for size: "...when of a sudden...." The all crept in there and now all of us use and know it.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-17-2010 at 12:03 PM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-17-2010, 12:17 PM   #5 (permalink)
Functionally Appropriate
 
fresnelly's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Tell that to Winnie the Pooh author, A. A. Milne, who wrote a book entitled Once on a Time....

EDIT:
As an aside: language and how usage evolves is kinda funny. For example, we all know that (now cheap) phrasing used in mysteries and thrillers: "...when all of a sudden...."

What if I told you that older texts used something different? Try this on for size: "...when of a sudden...." The all crept in there and now all of us use and know it.
Interesting. Kind of like "Y'all/You all..."
__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life
fresnelly is offline  
Old 09-17-2010, 09:36 PM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fresnelly View Post
Interesting. Kind of like "Y'all/You all..."
Which I like because it is perfectly gender neutral.
It jars me when someone (like a waiter) says "You guys ready to order?" to a mixed gender group. I know it's become common, but it still derails me.

Here's a clue: If it has tits, it's not a guy. Guys have balls. Some more than others, but you get the idea.

Lindy
Lindy is offline  
Old 09-18-2010, 05:37 AM   #7 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy View Post
Which I like because it is perfectly gender neutral.
It jars me when someone (like a waiter) says "You guys ready to order?" to a mixed gender group. I know it's become common, but it still derails me.

Here's a clue: If it has tits, it's not a guy. Guys have balls. Some more than others, but you get the idea.
You know who has tits? Dolls.

See, that's the thing: I don't know of anyone who refers to the female gender as "dolls." Could you imagine a waiter approaching a table of women and saying, "You dolls ready to order?" Or even a mixed table with, "You guys & dolls ready to order?" I might on a very rare occasion hear someone use "gals," but it hardly ever registers on the radar anymore.

"Guys" applied even to a group of females only doesn't jar me at all. I've accepted it as a gender-neutral term (colloquially anyway), which is interesting now that I think of it.

What's not so much the case is when someone refers to a female using man: "Oh, man, did you see that?" or "Hey, man, what's up?" I hear it all the time. In many cases, I don't really think about it, but sometimes I think to myself, "Why did she just call her a man?"

Gotta love language!
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-18-2010, 07:47 AM   #8 (permalink)
Kick Ass Kunoichi
 
snowy's Avatar
 
Location: Oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
"Guys" applied even to a group of females only doesn't jar me at all. I've accepted it as a gender-neutral term (colloquially anyway), which is interesting now that I think of it.
I've had a couple conversations recently about the use of guys as a gender-neutral term, actually. It seems like a lot of people my age and younger just accept that it is. It came up at work because my female coworkers and I always use that term in regards to our mixed gender groups, i.e. "Hey guys, it's time to put your coats on." This then led to a conversation with friends wherein we agreed that "guys" is so commonly used these days to refer to a group of people of either gender that is has become gender-neutral.

I love how language lives.
__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau
snowy is offline  
Old 09-18-2010, 01:12 PM   #9 (permalink)
Upright
 
AleaIactaEst's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
See, that's the thing: I don't know of anyone who refers to the female gender as "dolls.
I once lived in an area of Northern Ireland where people always referred to girls as dolls. I thought it was really peculiar. Generally it was something along the lines of "Here! Wee doll!" which roughly translates into "You there." The area was largely Scottish colonials who didn't care particularly how they used language. Other examples included "Miss learned me that," (The teacher taught me that already) and "Yer well feared." (Your scared.)

Strange, strange place.
AleaIactaEst is offline  
Old 09-18-2010, 06:26 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
You know who has tits? Dolls.

See, that's the thing: I don't know of anyone who refers to the female gender as "dolls." Could you imagine a waiter approaching a table of women and saying, "You dolls ready to order?" Or even a mixed table with, "You guys & dolls ready to order?"
How about ladies, women, girls, folks, or even just that wonderful second-person singular and plural personal pronoun "you" standing alone? And that's what I liked about Y'all/You all in fresnelly's post. We just need to move Y'all/You all up North of the Mason-Dixon line and overcome our urban sophisticate aversion to things Southern (except food, of course) and we'll have a new gender neutral second person pronoun.

Nobody uses "dolls" anymore except to describe a child's plaything or a collectible.

Or maybe a waiter at a dinner theater?Guys and Dolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or the diner style places with the real or pseudo Southern Belle waitress, where every customer is doll, or hun, or sweetie or something similar.

Quote:
"Guys" applied even to a group of females only doesn't jar me at all. I've accepted it as a gender-neutral term (colloquially anyway), which is interesting now that I think of it.
Especially since in France "Guy" is is a male given name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_(given_name)


Quote:
Gotta love language!
And I do! Plus one

Quote:
Originally Posted by snowy View Post
I've had a couple conversations recently about the use of guys as a gender-neutral term, actually. It seems like a lot of people my age and younger just accept that it is. It came up at work because my female coworkers and I always use that term in regards to our mixed gender groups, i.e. "Hey guys, it's time to put your coats on." This then led to a conversation with friends wherein we agreed that "guys" is so commonly used these days to refer to a group of people of either gender that is has become gender-neutral.
Ironic, isn't it, after all those years trying to lose the accepted use of chairman, postman, policeman, etc we now want to add a male term to the gender neutral pool of words? After all of the years spent replacing supposedly "male" terms with awkwordities like "Department Chair" (hey, what about the department desk?) now we add a new male term.

Quote:
I love how language lives.
Another plus one
And in the long run, of course, usage will trump all!

Lindy
Lindy is offline  
Old 09-18-2010, 07:21 PM   #11 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy View Post
Ironic, isn't it, after all those years trying to lose the accepted use of chairman, postman, policeman, etc we now want to add a male term to the gender neutral pool of words? After all of the years spent replacing supposedly "male" terms with awkwordities like "Department Chair" (hey, what about the department desk?) now we add a new male term.
It's interesting that you should view it as "adding a male term to a neutral pool of words." I think it's more along the lines of neutering a male term.

Quote:
And in the long run, of course, usage will trump all!
As always.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-19-2010, 05:22 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
It's interesting that you should view it as "adding a male term to a neutral pool of words." I think it's more along the lines of neutering a male term.
Well, yeah. I agree. It's also interesting that women will accept neutering a formerly male term and applying it to females. Men never do that. Can you think of any?
Men never accept being called by a formerly female term. "Hey guys, gals is now officially gender neutral. We men are now OK with being called gals, right?"

Lindy
Lindy is offline  
Old 09-19-2010, 05:25 PM   #13 (permalink)
Functionally Appropriate
 
fresnelly's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy View Post
Well, yeah. I agree. It's also interesting that women will accept neutering a formerly male term and applying it to females. Men never do that. Can you think of any?
Men never accept being called by a formerly female term. "Hey guys, gals is now officially gender neutral. We men are now OK with being called gals, right?"

Lindy
Bitch is sort of crossing gender boundaries now. "What up, Bitches?"

It's still derogatory but who knows where we'll be in 20 years.
__________________
Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life
fresnelly is offline  
Old 09-19-2010, 06:38 PM   #14 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindy View Post
Well, yeah. I agree. It's also interesting that women will accept neutering a formerly male term and applying it to females. Men never do that. Can you think of any?
I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm reminded how, in recent years, the word actor has come to stand in for "thespian" of either gender, meaning that actress is becoming archaic. And this reminds me of the truly archaic race-based feminizations that are now deemed rather offensive: Jewess and Negress come to mind (of course Negro applied to blacks is quite archaic in many circles now too).

But as far as a feminine term becoming a neutral term, I can't think of any. However, perhaps we can consider changes in terms for political correctness, such as stewardess. Not only was the femininity of the term problematic, but now there are males who hold these jobs, which makes the title "flight attendant" more apt. The same goes for seamstress, I imagine, and other terms like it.

Quote:
Men never accept being called by a formerly female term. "Hey guys, gals is now officially gender neutral. We men are now OK with being called gals, right?
It's not a matter of acceptance so much as it is usage. I suppose one possibility of this is the term nurse, as applied to those in the nursing profession. Some people say, "Oh, he's a male nurse," when it's actually apt to just say, "Oh, he's a nurse." Here's the Oxford note on the origin of the word:
Quote:
Origin: late Middle English: contraction of earlier nourice, from Old French, from late Latin nutricia, feminine of Latin nutricius '(person) that nourishes', from nutrix, nutric- 'nurse', from nutrire 'nourish'. The verb was originally a contraction of NOURISH, altered under the influence of the noun
So what you see is that nurse is a word that does have a feminine influence (the Old French nourice from the feminized Latin nutricia). Plus, of course, nursing was deemed a female profession for a very long time.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 09-22-2010, 01:06 PM   #15 (permalink)
On the lam
 
rsl12's Avatar
 
Location: northern va
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetée View Post
To make it easy though, the resident desktop encyclo- offered me (you, us all) this definition for upon:

prep.
On. See Usage Note at on.
I think you meant to quote the usage note, which is actually pretty informative:


Quote:
In their uses to indicate spatial relations, on and upon are often interchangeable: It was resting on (or upon) two supports. We saw a finch light on (or upon) a bough. To indicate a relation between two things, however, instead of between an action and an end point, upon cannot always be used: Hand me the book on (not upon) the table. It was the only town on (not upon) the main line. Similarly, upon cannot always be used in place of on when the relation is not spatial: He wrote a book on (not upon) alchemy. She will be here on (not upon) Tuesday.
__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

Last edited by rsl12; 09-22-2010 at 01:09 PM..
rsl12 is offline  
 

Tags
grammar


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:57 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360