Case book submissions?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/033.html

Interesting. I'm not sure my usage falls under the "slang" uses he mentions, but it's interesting to consider. I was using "like" to mean "akin to" (not really a simile), which I thought would be correct. I'd like to hear Juulie's thoughts on it.

Even tho Dan couldn't care less.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Interesting. I'm not sure my usage falls under the "slang" uses he mentions, but it's interesting to consider. I was using "like" to mean "akin to" (not really a simile), which I thought would be correct. I'd like to hear Juulie's thoughts on it.

Even tho Dan couldn't care less.

"Barking like a dog" is using "like" as a preposition, which is permitted, according to the Bartlesby link. The verb of the prepositional phrase is implied here ("Barking like a dog does") to avoid stilted usage.

"I could care less" is a sarcastic abbreviation for "As if I could care less", or the more likely "Like I could care less". There is no punctuation for sarcasm, unfortunately. When will smilies be added to the grammar books?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

"Barking like a dog" is using "like" as a preposition, which is permitted, according to the Bartlesby link. The verb of the prepositional phrase is implied here ("Barking like a dog does") to avoid stilted usage.

"I could care less" is a sarcastic abbreviation for "As if I could care less", or the more likely "Like I could care less". There is no punctuation for sarcasm, unfortunately. When will smilies be added to the grammar books?

Not that I could care any less, but I think your example argues against Chuck's usage. IMO it should be "Barking as a dog does".

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

A1 is an airborne shooter with the ball still in his hands. Defender B1, who does not have a LGP, approaches A1 from the side or rear and gets a hand on the ball while trying to block A1's shot. After this legal block, B1's subsequent momentum causes sufficient contact on airborne A1 to take A1 forcefully to the floor and out-of-bounds. The official ruled that the contact by B1 on airborne A1 was not a foul because it followed a legal block. Was the official correct?

What happened to this one?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What happened to this one?

Honestly, I didn't think it was worth it. It's so obviously a foul from the description that it doesn't need a ruling. The real question being asked is one of philosophy, not of rules. By rule, it's obviously a foul. I don't think the case book will include a note on philosophy of a legal block. If you strongly disagree and really think it needs to be included, email me and I'll send in another email with that play.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Honestly, I didn't think it was worth it. It's so obviously a foul from the description that it doesn't need a ruling. The real question being asked is one of philosophy, not of rules. By rule, it's obviously a foul. I don't think the case book will include a note on philosophy of a legal block. If you strongly disagree and really think it needs to be included, email me and I'll send in another email with that play.

Naw, I just get tired of arguing it. Just trying to make the point that there is more than one philosophy out there. Personally, I just call each situation individually anyway. I don't believe in "always" or "never" when it comes to fouls.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You should take your argument to this Bartleby guy, I could care less (...or should that be I couldn't care less...??).

http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/033.html

I'd prefer not to.

[Nevadaref]

A1 is holding the ball while standing out of bounds during a throw-in. (a) A1 extends the ball across the boundary plane and A2 (a TEAMMATE) touches the ball, but does not take if from A1's hands. or (b) A2 (a TEAMMATE) reaches through the boundary plane and touches the ball, but does not take it from A1's hands.
In both cases, A2 then ceases contact with the ball and A1 makes a throw-in pass to A3. Has a throw-in violation been committed?



Just don't ask Tony!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

A1 is holding the ball while standing out of bounds during a throw-in. A2 (a TEAMMATE) reaches through the boundary plane and touches the ball, but does not take it from A1's hands. A2 then ceases contact with the ball and A1 makes a throw-in pass to A3. Has a throw-in violation been committed?

I think that the one we argued was A2 touching the ball in-bounds while thrower A1 was holding it through the plane. Iirc, you said that wasn't a violation and others ( ) said it was.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I think that the one we argued was A2 touching the ball in-bounds while thrower A1 was holding it through the plane. Iirc, you said that wasn't a violation and others ( ) said it was.

Yep, yep, you're correct. I'll go edit the play to include both cases. Of course, I believe that both are legal.

[Corndog89]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Interesting. I'm not sure my usage falls under the "slang" uses he mentions, but it's interesting to consider. I was using "like" to mean "akin to" (not really a simile), which I thought would be correct. I'd like to hear Juulie's thoughts on it.

I checked in a couple of my old grammar books from college, and I think both would agree that barks like a dog is grammatically correct:

The Holt Handbook, 4th Edition, says:

"When used as a preposition, as indicates equivalency or identity [my emphasis]. 'After classes he works as a manager of a fast-food restaurant'.

"Like, however, indicates resemblance but never identity [my emphasis]. 'Writers like Carl Sandburg appear once in a generation.'"

Barks like a dog clearly indicates resemblance, not equivalency or identity.

The Hodges' Harbrace College Handbook, 7th Edition, says:

"In general usage, like functions as a preposition; as and as if (or as though) function as conjunctions. Although widely used in conversation and in public speaking, like as a conjunction is still controversial in a formal context....In such elliptical construcions as the following, however, the conjunction like is appropriate, even in formal context. 'He is attracted to blondes like a moth to lights.'" This again indicates resemblance, not equivalency or identity.

Hodges' Harbrace defines a preposition as "a function word that always has an object, which is usually a noun or a pronoun; the preposition with its object (and any modifiers) is called a prepositional phrase." In barks like a dog, dog is the object of the prepositional phrase and like is the preposition (function word) that describes the barking.

Of course, I suspect no one really give a sh!t.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Corndog89

Of course, I suspect no one really give a sh!t.

You are almost correct Corndog.

Actually no one gives a sh!t.

[ChuckElias]

You all already know that I'm pretty strange, so I have no problem admitting that I find it very interesting. Especially the part about using "like" as a conjunction. That would not have occurred to me.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

You all already know that I'm pretty strange, so I have no problem admitting that I find it very interesting. Especially the part about using "like" as a conjunction. That would not have occurred to me.

Like we care...errr...as if we care...errr...

btw I asked my dog what he thinks about this whole thing. He said "BARK! BARK!"

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

He said "BARK! BARK!"

Like a tree?