<p>Mifune has already applied to colleges, so there will be no retroactive improvement in college admissions essays. Moreover, he has already been accepted to a top college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your condescension toward a university English professor seems baseless. </p>
<p>I am not generally keen on engaging in mostly petty arguments, but most of your guys’ criticisms against mifune are inappropriate and disrespectful. Alumother, for example, indicates that her intention is to improve mifune’s writing; yet she has contributed nothing more beneficial than a hypercorrection of a phrase.</p>
<p>silverturtle, that’s not true. I am picking a specific example to illustrate a larger problem. Mifune uses too many big words, and tries to use them in unusual ways. He just doesn’t succeed.</p>
<p>It is not disrespectful to try to teach someone something. I am not engaging in arguments about which I know nothing. But that’s OK. Listen or not. Needless to say the rightness of my statements don’t mean you have to pay attention.</p>
<p>If Mifune has already applied, well then, he really doesn’t have to pay attention. But you others, if there is anyone here who has yet to apply, please start with your speaking voice when you write. Then let your language grow complex only as required by the intricacies of your thought.</p>
<p>^i think mifune’s writing sounds great, has great meaning, and it shows that he thinks deeply. i would rather have his “problem” than my own (im not that great at writing). i dont have 50 years of experience but it works for me. for example, im not a huge shakespeare fan and i really dont get much out of his writing but that doesnt mean my opinions are that valid. some writing just has a better ring to it for some people than others. </p>
<p>also i think reply 113 provides a better standard of what pretentious is (although i still thinks its weak :)). if you read through it though, it makes sense and its very funny.</p>
<p>so apparently b/c “passionately acquainted” isnt right (id agree since that doesnt really fit anything) “mildly acquainted” isnt right either… yeah… i dont get it either ;)</p>
<p>but she says “mildly interested”, “mildly (put past tense verb here)” and “barely acquainted” is right… <em>shrugs</em> but according to her, shes right all the time.</p>
<p>Please, don’t include me in this jolly conversation, but I do believe that mildly acquainted isn’t completely correct, since it is a pleonasm: The word acquainted already assumes a not very deep relationship, which makes ‘mildly’ redundant. </p>
<p>It has to do with the relationship with the modifier and what it’s modifying. Mildly interested works because interest is a feeling. There is intent. Acquaintance is a state. Mildly modifies a non-existent intent when used on acquaintance. It’s not a grammar rule. It’s an “understanding the true multiple layers of words” rule. </p>
<p>The best advice on writing I ever heard was this. Intend every word you write. To intend words, you have to know their meaning, their multiple meanings, in your gut.</p>
<p>GuiltyBystander is also probably correct. I’m just talking about how you become a good writer, not so much about grammar. Read a lot of books. Have curiosity about words. Start with communicating. Then get fancy.</p>
<p>I think you’re making a simple phrase sound convoluted: “barely acquainted”, “hardly acquainted”, “mildly acquainted”, “fairly acquainted”. Each describes “acquainted” in its own fashion.</p>
<p>You could argue that for many of the adjectives that do in fact work with “acquainted”, which, of course, is deceiving. That is in no way how “mildly” is describing “acquainted”. The only argument I support is GuiltyBystander’s, who states that saying “mildly” is simply redundant when used to describe “acquainted”.</p>
<p>Your argument, however, is wrong.
Mildly acquainted would actually imply that you made the acquaintanceship while behaving in a mild-mannered way.
Fairly acquainted would actually imply that you made the acquaintanceship while behaving in a fair way.
Barely acquainted would actually imply that you barely made the acquaintanceship.
According to you, that is.</p>
<p>From the Random House Dictionary on the definition of “acquainted”:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is nothing about extent in that definition; thus, there is no redundancy in “mildly acquianted.” It is perfectly acceptable to use the modifier “mildly” to say that the extent of one’s being informed is “moderate.” From the Random House Dictionary on the definition of “mild”:</p>
<p>You seem to be implying that “mildly” can only be used to modify feelings or things with which intent is associated. This is completely unsupported.</p>
<p>Everyone who thinks “mildly acquainted” isn’t incorrect - have you guys not studied for the SAT Writing section or something?</p>
<p>You either are acquainted with something or you’re not. End of discussion. You’re not “extremely acquainted,” “barely acquainted,” “passionately acquainted,” etc - you’re just “acquainted.” Same with “unique,” “equal,” and “irrevocable.”</p>
<p>The following statement is a proposition: “I am acquainted with Lewis Thomas.” That statement, like all propositions, can only be true or false - there is no gradient of truth involved.</p>
<p>I don’t really mind when people such as mifune have bad grammar, but when they can’t admit that they’re wrong I get a bit annoyed.</p>
<p>mifune had a perfect SAT and had two 12s and one 11 on his 3 essays. silverturtle is a basically a grammar genius if you ever happen to read the SAT forum and will likely have a perfect SAT coming up. and 187 likely has great scores too. you’re not exactly taking to 3 morons. </p>
<p>@Alumother: “mildly acquainted” shows the extent of something and is perfectly legit. gut feelings are in no way a good argument. i have doubts about your ability to make such arguments. saying that you’re 50-something and have more experience just doesnt cut it. and thats really disrespectful to say that youre writing ability is so much better and that you have more knowledge than someone w/ a phd in English.</p>
<p>@Alumother and randombetch: Both of your positions contradict each other. Thus, at the very least, we know that one of your seat-of-the-pants judgments of the English language is incorrect. Alumother asserts that there is indeed some type of valid continuum regarding “acquainted.” However, in her opinion, words such as “barely” (and perhaps others) may be properly placed in front of the word, whereas “mildly” cannot. Randombetch believes that no single word can modify “acquainted” since it appears to be an absolute term with no varying degrees of distinction. However, to the reader, being “acquainted” with something implies that one is familiar with the subject matter. “Barely acquainted” suggests that one has a relatively limited working knowledge of the topic. Thus, each expresses varying degrees of familiarity. </p>
<p>Also, Alumother, you believe that GuiltyBystander may be correct, yet his argument is based on redundancy issues, not idiomatic faults, as you suggest. Redundancy is not a form of language that is grammatically, inferentially, or idiomatically incorrect – it is simply superfluous language. Yet redundancy is not an issue when one betters the reader’s understanding of the material.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My English instructor happens to be in her mid-50s (which is irrelevant) and has a Ph.D. in English. Frankly, I do not believe that you or anyone has the proper qualifications to irrationally dismiss such judgment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your arguments are completely unsupported. For someone who assumes to have a perfect command of the English language and who ostensibly knows the proper connotations of every word, I find it unusual that you are unaware that “mild” holds the definition of “moderate in intensity, degree, or character” (provided by silverturtle).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gut feelings never substantiate any argument. No statements can be confirmed by merely attributing their formulation to some instinctive impulse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, your judgment is patently false since you fail to see the word in the context in which it was used. “Mildly” modifies the extent of “acquaintance.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Similar to what christiansoldier stated, the SAT Writing in no way tests “the true multiple layers of words rule.” In fact, if you personally worked for ETS and placed such a phrase on the test, you would not have a pleasant time sorting through and pleasantly responding to the thousand of petitions you would receive when 95% of the test-takers choose the “wrong” answer.</p>
<p>btw, christiansoldier had a perfect sat as well so he’s understating things when he says he got through the SAT writing “okay” w/o any of these “rules.”</p>