The Language Forum of WordReference.Com is an exciting world for those who want to be clarified on certain words and phrases. Participating in it gives one the benefit of exercising good habits of formal language as moderators police each one that no slang and chatspeak gets in the way.
Notice how closely they pay attention to words and word usage - as though in a clinic working on a specimen. The following is an example of how they work, and it's not simple.
Question: Which is the better expression -
simply put or put simply?
1) Simply put, affirmations are positive statements.
2) Put simply, affirmations are positive statements.
This question garnered some two pages of discussions - lettered here for easy follow up. The discussants, for the purpose here, are identified only by their country or language.
A) An Australian said it's a matter of personal taste, and that he preferred Number 2 or "Put simply."
B) An American said either is fine but yes, she'd go with Number 2 as well. "It's iambic." She explains later that the 'iamb' is the basic foot of most English verse, one short syllable followed by one long syllable. Anytime you get a chain of these together, the effect is 'melodious.' Here, "Put simply, affirmations" flows nicely because it gives you three iambs in a row.
C) A Spaniard said Number 2 sounds more "imperative" to him, if that is the idea.
D) However, an Armenian or Russian said both are correct, but he preferred Number 2. Somehow, "simply" sounds stronger when it follows the verb, which is, actually, what the opening statement aims to stress. It's more melodic, too. IMHO [In my humble opinion], of course, he said.
But why does "Simply put," sound better to others? The author of the thread said she had been used to hearing this.
E) An Englishman who also speaks French and Spanish said he also preferred Number 2 or "Put simply," and after reflexion he thought the reason is the following -
"simply put" is short for "simply putting this" whereas
"put simply" is short for "putting this simply". He explained -
The first is not what you mean - you don't mean "merely putting this" "doing nothing more than putting this" but you mean "putting this in a basic manner".
I think that on hearing "simply put" people would assume the meaning of "put simply," but I think this is why it sounds a slightly false note.
F) Another Englishman argued that -
Simply put = simply expressed. This is an easy and understandable way to put this idea into words.
Put simply = expressed simply. This idea put into words that are easily understood.
Then he said Number 2 or "Put simply" is the one for him, as it suggests the simplified wording rather that the manner by which the simplification was achieved. He, however, told the author to decide which she feels is more appropriate.
G) The Englishman who also speaks French and Spanish came back and suggested that perhaps changing the verb will help highlight the difference -
It was simply sung - it wasn't accompanied by music and drums etc.
It was sung simply - the singing was simple, no trills or jumping of octaves.
I think we can see from that that the first means "it was no more than sung" whereas the second is "the way it was sung was simple", and by analogy sentence 2 of the original choice is the right one.
H) The Australian disagreed and said, "You've changed the structure of the sentence here, so I don't think it really applies. There's a difference between, It was simply sung. And Simply sung ... and the same with It was sung simply and Sung simply..."
I) The Englishman who also speaks French and Spanish admitted his mistake but clarified: Ok - I have changed the structure, but I suppose the link that I forgot to underline was that -
"simply sung,..." is short for "having been simply sung" and "sung simply,..." is short for "having been sung simply" and that the difference between the two can then be examined by comparing "having been sung simply" and "having been simply sung" with "the song was sung simply" and "the song was simply sung" (e.g., the two sentences I talk about above) - or do you disagree with the logic of some of my comparisons there?
J) The Australian agreed with his logic. He said it was actually the first thing that came to His mind when he read the question in Post 1, but he just didn't think that the "simply putting this" meaning of "simply put" comes across loud and clear. It's a bit ambiguous, he said. He thought it could also mean "putting this simply".
K) The Englishman who also spoke in French and Spanish said he did admit earlier that a person could hear one used for the other. It was just that he, like many others, seemed to prefer the second so he was trying to analyse why -
Put simply, I don't think the use of either sentence would have made me stop and think, "Hmmm, I don't think a native speaker wrote that".
L) A Chinese got confused from this remark and asked why. If the Englishman agreed on that these are both commonly used, why was he saying that "as a native, you won't use either"?
M) The Englishman said -
You are missing the double negative.
I don't think the use of either sentence would have made me stop and think, "Hmmm, I don't think a native speaker wrote that." In other words, I can imagine a native speaker saying either. It obviously wasn't put as simply as I thought!
N) At this point, the author of the thread said she tried to scan the Internet. She said she found usage of both Simply put and Put simply. On the average, however, Simply put takes the upper hand. She also found an oft-quoted blogspot, entitled, SIMPLY PUT, but none of Put simply.
O) The Australian said one couldn't rely on the Google listings in this case because a lot of them are not in the context they were speaking of here.
P) The American, however, agreed with what the author of the thread found on the internet. "Simply put" is an idiom that she had always heard in the U.S. rather than "put simply." It means, "To put it simply".
She said, she found the iambic information interesting, but in this case, the most common usage is "Simply put."
END OF DISCUSSION.
The site is great for learning and diversion, too. It is highly recommended for writers and editors, as well as for linguists and language learners.
No comments:
Post a Comment