h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Of course, if, for example, the hassling was occurring at work, covering more than a single day, the single/multiple event distinction is rather muddied.
It depends whether you're mentally stitching your working time into a continuous tapestry, or considering it as separate days, and also whether the hassling is merely considered as discrete active *events*, or as a continuous atmosphere of latent hassle that connects individual hassles into one long *process*.

Therefore, it's not merely a matter of grammar, but of how one percieves hassle (event or process) from a personal viewpoint.

Potholer,

Thanks, I see what you mean, the 'being' seems to add a personal element to the statement, and indeed that was the meaning I was attempting to convey in my email. It's almost like it was a qualifier to say that it wasn't just generalised hassling that could have happened to anyone in the right place at the right time (or wrong place at the wrong time!) but specific hassling that was specifically directed at me. I guess the directed at me is the bit which conveys a human (or at least intelligent) operator behind it.

hmm, think I might be getting the hang of this (slightly!)

Hi Ictoan and Potholer

I'm afraid I don't agree on the 'have been being hassled' thing.

For me, their are two key problems here. Firstly, the verb in the example is 'to be hassled', which is a passive form of 'to hassle'. The passive form complicates the issue. Another key point here is the difference between the 'present perfect progressive' and the 'present perfect' forms.

The 'present perfect' is formed by taking 'have/has' and adding the past participle of the main verb (in regular verbs, stem +ed).

The 'present perfect progressive' is formed by taking 'have/has' and adding the past participle of the verb 'to be' (been) and adding the present participle (stem +ing).

Further confusion is added because the passive is formed by taking the verb 'to be' as an auxilliary verb and adding the past participle.

In the case of Ictoan's first example, this results in a clumsy arrangement of participles.

'I have been being kicked.' I (Subject personal pronoun) + have (perf. tense indicator) + been (passive aspect indicator) + being (progressive form indicator) + kicked (past participle).


Thus:

I have been being hassled. - The action has been ongoing over a period of time and is not yet complete. ie, I am still being hassled.

I have been hassled. - The action may have been short or long term, we don't know, but the action *is* now complete. ie The hassle has ended (perhaps only temporarily!).

NB I do not mean that in the second example there will be no more 'hassling', simply that the tense itself implies a completed action.

I believe a good test for this is to imagine how the speaker would have put it in the present tense.

I am being hassled. - the action is still ongoing.

I am hassled. - the action is complete.


To my mind, this particular example is more difficult to understand because it is not a very natural thing to say. This is more acute in the present than in the past tense.

What do you think?

Spiff

"I am being hassled. - the action is still ongoing.
I am hassled. - the action is complete."

I'd be tempted to interpret the first as
"I am being hassled (by someone)",
and the second as
"I am (feeling) hassled", in the same sense as "I am hurt" seems to equate to "I am feeling hurt"

In the second case, there's the possibility, but not the requirement, that the cause for the state of hasslement has finished, but whether it has or not, the state is currently still active.

The difference with being kicked is that, having once been kicked, the resulting state is pain, bruising, etc. There isn't a maintained state (of 'kickedness') in quite the same way as there is for hassle - you don't subsequently *feel* kicked as such.

Yes Potholer,

I agree. 'I am hassled' could be Subject + verb (pres.) + adj. (formed from past participle).

In that case, 'I have been hassled.' is a present perfect form of the verb 'to be'. Subject + auxilliary 'have' (past tense indicator) + past participle of the verb 'to be' + adj. (from past part.)

Would you agree that in this case the word 'hassled' is a past participle in 'I have been being hassled.' whereas it is an adjective in 'I have been (feeling) hassled.'?

In my view, both interpretations of the second example are valid. I might also add that I used the alternative example of 'I have been being kicked' vs 'I have been kicked' specifically because it emphasises the 'finished' or 'completed' nature of the action. I hadn't thought about it, but I think I felt wary of the ambiguous nature of the word 'hassled'. Of course, 'I am being kicked.' is not something most people say every day!

Interesting to look into these kind of details, but I tend to find that the overlapping areas of meaning, tense and aspect make it difficult to discuss these kinds of questions without going into considerable depth. I for one have already found that it requires a great deal of thought accurately to describe and explain what is going on in even relatively simple sentences.

Grammar, eh! I just love it.

No! Really, I actually do!

Spiff

PS Potholer, you didn't by any chance invent that word that ended in -ment, did you?

I'm not entirely sure about the fine linguistic definitions, but it does seem that the possibly implict 'feeling' changes 'hassled' from a verb to a condition.

There is always the problem that linguistics tries to extract definite rules from naturally developing language, whereas for the most part, most people (myself included) generate what internal rules they do use themselves, both from observation of a sufficient amount of correct usage, and as a result of having mistakes corrected by being given the right usage without explicit reference to linguistic terms.

The fluidity of words in English, (nouns being verbed, etc) does lead to difficulty where a particular word, with no change in spelling, could be many different things depending on the surrounding words.

Re: 'Hasslement', I'm not sure if it's a word I've heard before, or one I constructed using one of the many standard English word-mangling rules.
I wonder what the word describing the amount of hassle in a given situation should be? - hassleness, hassleicity, hassleocity, hassletude, hassletudinicty?

I was wondering, have you ever read the Jargon File / New Hacker's Dictionary (widely available on the web). Even for a non-tech person, I reckon the language usage shown in the invention of novel words could be very interesting. (It's probably better downloading a text version for serious reading, since cliking through hyperlinked ones could get dull very quickly.)

No, not as in the indignant "DO you MIND?"

Actually, Potholer, I was going to ask if you'd mind having a look at a piece I've started. It is about prescriptive vs descriptive approaches to grammar study and I think you might have some interesting things to say on the subject. If you are interested, I would love to hear your comments.

I don't really want to put the link here, as this is clearly 'public' discussion territory, which is not *necessarily* what I'm after. Having said that, anyone who is interested can find the link on my homepage.

Basically, I fancied trying my hand at guide entry writing and since grammar is a subject that interests few but concerns everybody (doesn't it?) I thought I might be able to contribute something along these lines. Needless to say, it is far from finished!

Ictoan, I would be just as keen to have your views on any of these things, since you seem to interested and at the same time relatively new to grammar study. In particular, if you are not familiar with the linguistic terminology (don't worry, none of it should be beyond you! ) your feedback as to the clarity of the presentation could be very valuable.

Anyway, if you have the time and the desire, have a gander.

As for hassle -ment, -icity, -tude etc. I'm sorry to be boring, but to mind mind, hassle just doesn't allow any other forms. My Chambers gives its etym as being 'unknown', which of course has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I wondered if it might not be a corruption of 'harrass' with some other word. Or even a corruption of a hypothetical word 'harrassal'. If this last were the case, it of course is already a noun formed from a verb by adding -al.

Spiff

Spiff,

Hope you dont mind me quotingbut:
"In the case of Ictoan's first example, this results in a clumsy arrangement of participles."

Would tend to suggest to me that the real answer to my question is that I should reword the email into something simpler!

Perhaps "As I've come in for some hasslement ...."

I also have been a bit nervous about posting some of this as some of the other BritEng posters don't seem to have said much recently. Come on, out with it, are we boring you?

Certainly not boring me, it's opening up a whole new word, who'd have believed that there could be so many different interpretations of such simple phrases (well, obviously most of the BritEng thread posters, but you know what I mean!)

Will certainly have a look at your writings and attempt to make vaguely intelligent noises at the same time Your explanations so far have been the sort I was looking for, understandable but acknowledging of intelligence in the reader.

Well, I'm certainly not bored. I'm sitting here, mouth agape.

The OED Compact (which is a rather misleading use of the word "compact") does not mention hassle at all.
I rather like "hasslement" and, provided it's not copyright, I'd like to use it. Can I offer "spectacularity" in part exchange? I intended it to imply the outrageousness of a concept or suggestion:
"the spectacularity of the idea boggles the imagination" noun, abstract, familiar.

"I've been being hassled ..."
That seems to be one of the "you can't get there from here" or "If I were you I wouldn't start from here" things.
I'd prefer:
I am (being) continually hassled, or
I was (being) continually hassled, or
I have been continually hassled,
Depending whether the hassling is continuing, or was perpetrated whilst something else was happening, or is now consigned to the past.
I don't think that "being" adds a lot to the sense. It's the sort of thing that gets "said" but when committed to paper or whatever seems redundant.

I write with the authority of a 1959 GCE O Level English pass, not to mention 57 years of active pedantry. So there.

[yes, I have noticed Nikki's absence. I posted to her space over 3 weeks ago. I don't have an email for her, but am getting worried]

You budding grammarians can't put me off. Some of it's a good laugh. Not up to jwf's standard, but "worth the detour".

I have enjoyed watching people trying to get their minds round stuff that's our daily bread. It is very useful to take a fresh view at what you take for granted. And I respect Ictoan (sp?) for asking in the first place. Spiff's doing a spiffing job of explaining - I'll leave that up to him.

No one should ever worry about not knowing something, because knowledge is something you can pick up any time. It's the understanding that makes you a better person. And the best type of person is one who knows and can make others understand.

Love it!

Yes, of course. I should have sprinkled a smiley or two. The answers aren't wrong and the questions are interesting.
Are you a native speaker Ictoan? If so, it's rather an indictment of current first language English education.
I use 'hassle" as both noun and verb, as in "She gave me a lot of hassle over that; I don't think I've ever been so hassled" but I guess I'll get used to 'hasslement' if that's what the rest of you decide.

Hi TC,

thanks for those few kind words. I rather enjoy trying to explain these things but above all I *love* trying to understand them myself!

Glad to hear that we're not alone!

Spiff

By the way, I don't really think of myself as a language fascist. I accept lots of variation and I believe the English-speaking world would be a duller place without it. I would like to teach English as a foreign language and I have already given a few 'unofficial' lessons to French acquaintances. When you have to explain some of this stuff to a student you realise how difficult it is to define exactly how some aspects of English function. It is a real revelation!

Hi

Hassle, hassled

I'm okay with - "I'm feeling hassled." I've certainly heard plenty of native speakers use it.

Hassle certainly can be a verb (taking a direct object) or a noun. That being the case, I don't see any problem with using the past participle as an adjective, along the lines of, "I'm feeling stressed." Of course, some native-speakers don't like this either!

Any footy fans out there find it amusing that Tomas Haessler (sp?) is a really gutsy, 'get-in-there' kind of player? I send a letter to UEFA every year nominating him for 'aptly named player of the year', but they have never replied!

Spiff

TC's comments about knowledge being stuff you can always pick up has set me wondering. I always thought it was what you already knew.
I appreciate that she then made that point that 'understanding' was the important bit, so we're probably on the same wavelength.

I am currently struggling with an apparent general confusion of the terms, 'intelligence, information and knowledge' as many people now (in this new information age) seem to use them interchangeably.

My theory was:
Intelligence is how you get to h2g2.
Information is stuff you can look up.
Knowledge was what you actually really know.
And Understanding was how you applied Intelligence to Information and Knowledge.

Anyone want to give us an etym of Intelligence ..give us some sense of what it is supposed to mean?

peace
jwf

...or should that be the other way round?

Hi jwf,

Re intellegence. I think this is right. The latin origins are the verb 'intelligere' - to understand. This verb is itself an amalgamation of 'inter' and 'legere' - 'between' and 'choose' respectively.

This seems to imply that 'to understand' is to 'choose between'. This reminded me of the related English word 'to discern', which I take to mean 'to make out' originally, though I think most people would describe someone as 'discerning' meaning that they had good taste or judgement.

By the way, I'm not sure that knowledge only includes information that 'I' know. There is lots of what I would call 'knowledge' out there that I definitely *don't* know. The fact that someone, somewhere knows something counts, as far as I am concerned, as 'knowledge'.

More generally, I always think people tend to take too narrow a definition of 'intellegence'. Many people who know very little can be very intellegent. They may not have had access to (or taken any notice of) the information that could have been turned into knowledge. Plus, they may 'know' all kinds of things that I don't.

What I don't like is seeing people judged to be lacking in intellegence *purely* because they lack knowledge. It seems to happen quite often. Come to think of it, I'm not keen on people assuming they are 'intellegent' just because they have knowledge that others lack. The two are clearly linked in some ways but for me they are too often badly judged.

Spiff

A brief aside, and I apologise if it has been asked before, when do I use burnt and when do I use burned? I was posting in another forum and typed the following sentence and then couldn't decide which it should be:

'Your brain interprets these as burning pain in your mouth although you aren't really being burnt.'


k

PS If you read 'military intelligence' to mean 'military knowledge' then it makes sense. I have often heard this phrase described as an oxymoron...

I burned my hand, I burnt the toast?

Alternatively, I think that "the bridge is being burned" means someone is burning the bridge, while "the bridge is being burnt" means that the bridge is just existing in a charred state.
So your mouth is being burned (by whatever is burning it).

Thanks for the discernment, Spiff!

All that past perfect, pluperfect stuff you guys was talking about also applies to burned/burnt, spilled/spilt, etc ..doesn't it? Seems to me it's like the gerund (which now seems limited to the present part) but in a past tense.
Burned is obviously the past tense of the verb, but burnt is descriptive in a normative adjectival way isn't it?
Let's say we're talking about burning bridges...
One can say it was burned, has been burned, was being burned.
But if it IS burnt, it may have in the past been being burnt but it definitely WASN'T burnt or it couldna/wouldna burned anymore. (Burned fingers and mouths not withstanding.)
Learned/learnt
Killed/kilt
Tolled/tolt
Discerned/discernt

jwf