Replies: 29 comments

---

on Saturday, September 30th, NI said:

"Confusing Freshmen"

I love that line.

---

on Tuesday, October 3rd, cookie monster said:

What is "polemical" about saying you confuse freshman for a living? Its no wonder they are confused.

---

on Wednesday, October 4th, Nietzsche said:

Graduate student - one with a large vocabulary and a small brain

---

on Thursday, October 5th, faith said:

From the OED:

Polemic: 1Bi. controversial argument; a strong verbal or written attack on a person, opinion, doctrine, etc.; (as a mass noun) writing or opinion of this kind.

Amateurs!

---

on Thursday, October 5th, Cookie monster said:

Yes, that is indeed what "polemic" means. So, when you say "polemically" that you confuse freshman for a living, what argument are you mounting? what person, opion, or doctrine are you strongly attacking? And why would you "often" mount that same strong attack over and over.

I assume the word you intended was "facetiously".

---

on Thursday, October 5th, Lord Russell said:

I believe our little Cookie monster is correct.

There is a problem with the use of the word, 'polemically'; as it is used in the wrong context. You must read my article again, so as to get a better understanding of my position of these matters.

---

on Saturday, October 7th, Ophelia said:

Wow. Somebody pass out the Zanax.

---

on Saturday, October 7th, faith said:

Alright, kids: here's the lesson for today (no charge). The '-ly' ending of the word 'polemically' means that it's an adverb, whose grammatical function is to modify a verb or another adverb, not a noun. It modifies the verb 'refer' in this case--thus indicating how I refer, rather than to whom or what I refer.

I repeat: amateurs!

As a general point of etiquette: make sure you understand grammar before you attack the (wrongly) perceived grammatical infelicities of another. And indeed, make sure your own puerile comments are written correctly (including your use of semi-colons, Bertrand . . . and your spelling of 'opinion,' Herr Monster).

---

on Saturday, October 7th, cookie monster said:

and you continue to miss the point:

Yes. We understand that it is an adverb, and that it modifies the verb "refer." What does that have to do with the present discussion? If you say "I often refer to my job (polemically)as confusing freshman" it means that whenever you so refer, you do so in the context of mounting an argument--attacking a person, opinion, or doctrine. Would you say "I often refer to my job (argumentatively) as confusing fresmen"? I doubt it.

If so, I repeat my question:

When you so refer to your job, what person, opinion or doctrine are you attacking?? What is the thesis of the argument? What are its premisses?

Please admit that there is no polemic being mounted when you say your job is confusing freshmen.

I admit that I made an error above. I believe the word you really intended was neither "polemically" nor "facetiously". It was "provocatively."

---

on Saturday, October 7th, cookie monster said:

No xanax for me, thanks. I only do cookies.

---

on Saturday, October 7th, faith said:

Sorry: you're wrong. I thought the previous response was good enough, and that you could make the inference. But if I have to hold your hand--

1. An adverb refers to a verb.
   
   
2. An adjective refers to a noun.
   
   
3. A noun is a person place or a thing (like a person, opinion or doctrine).
   
   
4. 'Polemical' is an adjective. 'Polemically' is an adverb. (1,2,3, previous post)
   
   Therefore:
5. The adjective 'polemical' takes as its object a 'person, opinion or doctrine. (2,3,4)
   
   And:
6. The adverb 'polemically' does not (1,4,5).
   

Would if I did use the adjectival word 'polemical,' then you might have a proverbial leg to stand on.

When you ask "what person, opinion or doctrine are you attacking," you are asking for a noun. I hope this much is clear. If not, please stop reading this site and go to a chatroom, where you might feel smarter than the average '15/f/iowa.'

'We' may understand what an adverb is, but I don't think you do.

One might just as well ask: "what person, opinion or doctrine are you provoking" with your choice of 'provocatively.' But, this too is a misunderstanding of the grammar of a word.

I admit there is no polemic. And that is because of the simple fact that it does not need one, given the word I properly used. And I stand by the simple fact that, when I do so, I refer in an attacking way.

It's like talking grammar with Jed Clampett!

---

on Saturday, October 7th, cookie monster said:

*sigh*

Just because "polemically" modifies a verb. That doesnt change the fact that a "polemic" is an argument.

If you "refer polemically" then the act of reference is (part of) a polemic. When you make the reference, you are engaging in polemic. Hence it is an argument and/or an atack on a person opionion or doctrine and hence it needs a conclusion and premisses and it needs an oponent.

If I say "I refer provocatively" then my reference is a provocation. (just as before it was a polemic). So yes, it needs someone to be provoked. And of course, the person I am trying to provoke is my listener. Presumably, I am trying to "provoke" them into a certain sort of response like "wow, faith, do you really confuse freshman for a living--you are soooo cool."

---

on Saturday, October 7th, cookie monster said:

One more point. Whether the word is a noun, adjective, or adverb doesnt affect the meaning of the sentence, it only affects roughly speaking, where the word gets placed. In other words, these three sentences mean exactly the same thing.

I refer to my job polemically.

I use a polemical phrase to name my job.

I refer, while making a polemic, to my job.

the first is an adverb, the second an adjective, the third a noun. In all three cases, there is mention being made of a polemic being involved. and a polemic is an argument. it needs premisses and a conclusion. and to trully be the kind of argument that is usually called a polemic, it needs a person, doctine, or opinion being _attacked_. your own citation makes this clear.

You can have the last word, Jed.

---

on Saturday, October 7th, faith said:

Where's jason. when you need him!

"If you 'refer polemically' then the act of reference is (part of) a polemic." Wrong. If I 'refer polemically' then it is the the way I refer (again, it's a fucking adverb) that is an attack. The fact that you had to change the word to a noun ('polemic') to make your question a grammatical sentence shows this, whether you realize it or not.

Let's simplify this, consider:

I do my job well.

Does that mean that my use of 'well' here is implicitly part of a 'good'? Or is it proper to ask here what person or thing is 'well?' No, because 'well' modifies the verb 'to do.'

You can change the sentence to include it as a noun or adjective in a larger prepositional phrase, but that is *gasp* changing the sentence. The function of an adverb can be subbed in for by a noun as part of a prepositional phrase (3). And in (2) you had to insert a noun to take the adjective. Also, (3) does not mean the same thing as (1). Your examples show nothing.

"and [sic] to trully [sic] be the kind of argument that is usually called a polemic, it needs a person, doctine, [sic] or opinion being _attacked_. your [sic] own citation makes this clear."

Uh . . . not sure if you noticed but my definition was of the noun. The definition of adjectives and adverbs in dicionaries is usually unhelpful since they are defined in terms of the noun: 'of or pertaining to [noun form].' Indeed the OED says: "In a polemical manner; controversially, disputatiously" under 'polemically.' Exactly what I've been saying all along: the way or manner of referring. I am referring to my job; I do so attackingly. What's so hard about this?

Oh yeah--and the definition did not mean 'argument' in a technically logical sense. You seem to be hung up on this point. It is used more like an 'argument' with the wife. The sense of 'polemical' is usually that of an informal fallacy, a flippant remark, not an argument which "needs premisses [sic] and a conclusion." Bill O'Reilly's arguments are polemical in this way (thanks for the "last word," by the way)--not logically valid, but rather just attacks.

But I digress: You say, "If I say 'I refer provocatively' then my reference is a provocation." No, in this case it is the way or manner in which you refer is to provoke. That's different. And--in fact--it was not even an attempt to provoke. It was a fucking joke. It seems you didn't get it (which really, in retrospect, comes as no surprise).

Who the hell are you? Identify yourself, oh self-proclaimed God or Goddess of grammar--or be subject to your IP banned the next unsupported thing that is in the comment box from you.

---

on Saturday, October 7th, Jason. said:

You're right, Tom. You don't need my help. But, since you asked, all I'd add to your statements is the etymology of "polemically" ("Either < POLEMIC adj. + -ALLY suffix, or < POLEMICAL adj. + -LY suffix 2.", which supports your original post.

Look on the bright side. At least your freshmen are responsive outside of the classroom. Mine just sit and stare down at the table when they don't understand something.

---

on Monday, October 9th, hud said:

You know, I initially stayed out of this precisely because I envisioned it turning into a pissing contest. But since my name was invoked in a subsequent post I felt that I ought to engage. I have to admit, that after reading the first set of responses I though 'hmm, maybe Tom did use it incorrectly' which was quickly followed by 'why has no one ever corrected him before?' (specifcally thinking of Mr Silver here but not wanting to argue from authority) Funny thing is, I quickly realized that switching the "polemically" for the definition originally posted immediately revealed the usage to be correct.
"I often refer to my job (argumentatively) as confusing freshmen"
Why is it argumentative? Because it is a strong verbal attack on a person. That is, it attacks the capacities of freshmen and/or that manner of teaching (which would be a doctrin).
And, while I do not, polemically or otherwise, refer to my job as confusing freshmen, it certainly seems to be an effect.
ps. my grammar sucks; correct it if you want, i'm sure there is something worth getting nit-picky about.

---

on Monday, October 9th, CM said:

Hud:

Then why did Faith say above (in one of the comments)?

"I admit there is no polemic."

His argument is the bizarre claim that because he uses the adverbial form of the term, there needn't be a polemic involved. (As if when I say "I run quickly", there need be no quickness involved.)

Your argument I can actually accept, though it is a tiny bit of a stretch.

I dont know if this post will be considered "inflamatory", but none of you would know me by my real name anyway--so I thought consistency would be more informative. (I did not post the comments under the names "russell or nietchze (which i can never spell anyway)).

---

on Monday, October 9th, faith said:

Ah, but we all want to know who you are. Consistency in this case is not "more informative." And a brief list of your credentials, also; the entire content of your CV is not necessary.

---

on Tuesday, October 10th, Nathan DeGraaf said:

I know I'm late on this one, but allow me my two cents. Polemically, when used as an adverb, falls under the same definition as controversially, not argumentatively. In this case, ole Faith is implying that his reference causes controversy. So he's right. He may not know shit about the economy, but he's got this one.

---

on Tuesday, October 10th, Cookie Monster said:

Mr DeGraaf:

You are saying that "polemic" means (roughly) "argument", but "polemically" does not mean "argumentatively"? The root meaning somehow changes when the adverb is formed? And yet, this is not reflected in any dictionary that I look in. My dictionaries, if they provide any separate definition of the adverbial form at all, simply say "of or relating to polemic". So your evidence for your rather surprising claim would be what, now?

So far, the only one to give me even a moderately convincing argument was "Hud." And Faith made it quite clear that he disagrees with Hud when he said "I admit there is no polemic here."

I am at still at a loss to understand how any one can think that a verb can be carried out "polemically" without there being any polemic involved.

If someone can come up with another example of an adverb that is formed from a noun by adding "ally", and where that adverb can then modify a verb with out an instance of the noun being involved, then I will begin to entertain the possibility that there is some logic to all of this. But I doubt such an example will be forthcoming.

---

on Tuesday, October 10th, faith said:

As I tell my students: "If you're gonna cite a dictionary, it better fucking well be the OED!" Minus explicative, of course.

Oh, and by the by: "of or relating to polemic" would be the entry under the adjective, not the adverb. So, I'll call your bluff--which fine dictionary did you open up before posting?

---

on Tuesday, October 10th, Cookie Monster said:

Yes, yes. I knew it would come to that. But I have lost my magnifying glass and it is so tiresome to lift that heavy volume.

But for you, Faith, anything:

My OED says, (for "polemically": "In the manner of a polemic"

Therefore, if you "admit there is no polemic here" then it is not in the manner of a polemic (or else there would be a polemic here--the one in the manner of which it was done), and hence it is not done polemically.

point. set. match.

---

on Tuesday, October 10th, Cookie Monster said:

By the way, so kind of you to ask what dictionary I used and then try to block my posts.

---

on Tuesday, October 10th, Cookie Monster said:

By the way, so kind of you to ask what dictionary I used and then try to block my posts.

---

on Tuesday, October 10th, Opehlia said:

Cookie Monster: get a life! You opinions are obviously tiresome and unwanted. Why do you persist?

Once again, I suggest to you Zanax. You need not the sugar of any more cookies.

---

on Tuesday, October 10th, Cookie Monster said:

Xanax, my dear, xanax.

But you speak the truth. The sugar of these infernal cookies drives me to do terrible, terrible things. If only I could break the habit. If only I could break that habit, I probably could get myself a life.

---

on Tuesday, October 10th, Nathan DeGraaf said:

You guys must hate the English language. The word polemic does not mean argument. It incites arguments, and you goddamn philsophers use them to make arguments, but the real meaning is simpler than that. Basically, a polemic is a statement with political undertones. You can look in all the dictionaries you want, but the truth is that when something is polemic, it is worthy of controversy (which in turn, incites arguments). I don't know what dictionaries y'all use and I don't care. Let me tell you how us simpleteopns define a word. Gibe me a polemic without controversy. And for god sakes people, I know you philosophers have to fight over word meanings to make your points, so why not just use simpler words. Tom if someone has a problem with polemic, don't get in a bullshit grammar battle with them, just use a simpler word, if that doesn't work, use a simpler word. This is why philopsophers suck at writing, they think "appropo" is better than fitting. Easy is better in everything: women, buzzes and words. Trust me, I don't know shit.

---

on Tuesday, October 10th, Nathan DeGraaf said:

Taken from the internet (the idiot's guide to definitions):

Adv.1.polemically - involving controversy; "criticism too polemically stated" controversially

Join the morons, guys. Smart is a bed sheet.

---

on Wednesday, October 11th, Cookie Monster said:

Dear Mr. DeGraaf:

I do not _hate_ the English language. But I must admit I love only cookies. I wonder where you get the idea that I am a philosopher. Most people know me for my work as a character actor, and as the host on "Monsterpiece Theatre."

Though I do prefer cookies, I will join you in your opinion that easy women do have their virtues (if you will pardon the irony of the phrase). But I should caution you to use a prophylactic. It appears the syphilis you contracted from your forays with these creatures has gotten to your head. Please be more careful in the future.