******************************************************************************************************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. *******************************************************************************************************************************************************

Not wanting to get drawn into the argument but I know the saying in that form and had always assumed it to be a poetic construction. Probably originally penned by Will S, most of them are!

*************************************************** Nigel Pain Scottish Executive Analytical Services Team Victoria Quay EDINBURGH EH6 6QQ Tel 0131 244 7237 <Mailto:nigel.pain@scotland.gsi.gov.uk> Website: <http:\\www.scotland.gov.uk>

-----Original Message----- From: Paul Dorfman [mailto:paul_dorfman@HOTMAIL.COM] Sent: 04 June 2003 05:58 Subject: Re: Your opinion is solicited on the statement "you use SAS because

>From: Robert Stratton <rstratton@PHD.CO.UK> > >I'm reasonably sure that 99% of the English speaking world knows the >saying "two wrongs do not a right make", and has also read countless >derivations like the one you quote. Probably best to check your own >lingusitic prowess first?

Robert,

Sure it is. Let us see. First, let us assume that the expression goes against the basic rules of the English language (even permitting reasonable inversions) and places the predicate *last*, that is, represents an inversion of the phrase

"Two wrongs do not make a right".

In this case, you are correct, and basically "wrongs" and "right" can be substituted by any two objects with opposite qualities. However, I suspect that the expression does not go that far and instead is structured as

"[Two wrongs] [do] [not a right] [make]",

which can be rephrased as

"Two wrongs <produce not> <a right thing>.

With this interpretation, plugging a deliberate stuff instead of "wrong" and "right" becomes questionable, since now, "right" is the "thing"'s adjective, and as any person marginally literate in linguistics knows, replacing a single-word adjective with a complex adjective construction (like "full properly powered study") runs a risk of drastically reducing the clarity of the whole phrase by making the reader select between many possible associations between its tokens.

I doubt that the creators of the site have gone any lengths at all or even had a passing thought about the grammar. Them having paid any serious linguistic attention to the phrase I tried to dissect would be quite inconsistent with the utter illiteracy manifested in the rest of the text.

Kind regards, ----------------------------- Paul M. Dorfman Jacksonville, FL -----------------------------

> > > >paul_dorfman@HOTMAIL.COM (Paul Dorfman) wrote in message >news:<BAY2-F154QmBuq3dLLJ0000ba64@hotmail.com>... > > >From: Roger Lustig <trovato@BELLATLANTIC.NET> > > > > > >--If you don't believe there's something to my previous point, then > > >please explain what this means: "Our competent statisticians can > > >explain their methodologies using their own qualifications without > > >giving reference to an off source." > > > > Roger, > > > > I have tried hard to abstainfrom this, uhm... unprofessionalizm, but >finally > > your choice of example has got me fired up. If you had looked harder at >the > > site Bob referenced, you would have found this perl: > > > > "Two underpowered studies do not a full properly powered study make." > > > > Candidly, I am at lost about the origin of the creators of this >linguistic > > diamond. Surely not Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, or any other Slavic >tongue. > > If it were, it would look more like > > > > "Two underpowered studies not compensate for one complete properly >powered > > study". > > > > Still flawed, but at least comprehensible. I guess what I am trying to > > convey to the authors of the page is: > > > > "Everything from SAS/STAT competent your statisticians in heartbeat with > > their pocket can program using calculator. Ok, one properly full >powdered > > study me show two underpowdered studies do not a full properly powdered > > study make". > > > > Deal? > > > > Kind regards, > > ----------------------------------- > > Paul M. Dorfman > > Jacksonville, FL > > ----------------------------------- > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

_________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail