mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Can I use this word to replace two other words? Options
dennisguy
Posted: Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:21:05 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 7/8/2013
Posts: 10
Neurons: 30
Location: Canada
Here is a sample sentence.

(i) Fortunately, the manager was kind enough to introduce me to the youth program coordinator in Raymur Community Centre and refer me to the youth councilor in a local youth-oriented school.

Can I replace "to introduce" and "to refer" with "to connect"?

(ii) Fortunately, the manager was kind enough to connect me with the youth program coordinator in Raymur Community Centre and the youth councilor in a local youth-oriented school.

Please help me with this question. Thanks a lot.
leonAzul
Posted: Thursday, August 1, 2013 11:35:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,076
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
dennisguy wrote:
Here is a sample sentence.

(i) Fortunately, the manager was kind enough to introduce me to the youth program coordinator in Raymur Community Centre and refer me to the youth councilor in a local youth-oriented school.

Can I replace "to introduce" and "to refer" with "to connect"?

(ii) Fortunately, the manager was kind enough to connect me with the youth program coordinator in Raymur Community Centre and the youth councilor in a local youth-oriented school.

Please help me with this question. Thanks a lot.

That depends on the level of detail that you wish to provide in your narrative. If the detail of the sequence of events is not important to the narrative, then (ii) is the way to go, especially if economy of words is an issue for the publisher.
franziska_01
Posted: Friday, August 2, 2013 5:05:35 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/11/2011
Posts: 147
Neurons: 14,026
Location: Genova, Liguria, Italy
I'd use to liaise with instead of to connect with, because it literally means to create a relationship with somebody. IMHO it is more suitable, if you are speaking of people.
leonAzul
Posted: Friday, August 2, 2013 10:14:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,076
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
franziska_01 wrote:
I'd use to liaise with instead of to connect with, because it literally means to create a relationship with somebody. IMHO it is more suitable, if you are speaking of people.

TIP™ moans, "The Horror!"

I understand that the transformation of a noun to a verb is a natural extension of the living English language, but this one is problematic, to say the least. It is derived from the noun "liaison", itself originally a loan word from the French language. The debasement of this word of noble pedigree has largely been perpetrated by that bottomless font of good taste commonly referred to as corporate culture (a suitably ambiguous oxymoron if ever there was one). Many people still cringe at the sound of "to liaise" in the same way that they resist "to interface" or the improper use of the verb "to impact" (its literal meaning is "to crush inward", not "to strongly influence").

Edited to add:
Well, it looks like that train has left the station. While searching to verify whether such a verb as liaiser exists in the French language (it doesn't), I instead got numerous results that recognize "liaiser" as a natural extension of the verb "to liaise". Webster's Online has already embraced not only that, but also "liaisedly"!

Oh, the humanity!
Boo hoo!

Legitimate or not, it still means something more specific than a general introduction or referral among persons.
early_apex
Posted: Friday, August 2, 2013 10:30:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/20/2009
Posts: 2,281
Neurons: 12,855
Location: Spindletop, Texas, United States
Very pedantic, LA, and very true. It is one thing to go around nouning verbs, but to do it simply for the purpose of sounding oblique and making your one-on-one meeting sound more important, as if you had done something vaguely "French" when you met, is not good use of language.
towan52
Posted: Friday, August 2, 2013 11:29:28 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,982
Neurons: 226,444
Location: Waco, Texas, United States
LA posted: "I understand that the transformation of a noun to a verb is a natural extension of the living English language, but this one is problematic, to say the least. It is derived from the noun "liaison", itself originally a loan word from the French language. The debasement of this word of noble pedigree has largely been perpetrated by that bottomless font of good taste commonly referred to as corporate culture (a suitably ambiguous oxymoron if ever there was one). Many people still cringe at the sound of "to liaise" in the same way that they resist "to interface" or the improper use of the verb "to impact" (its literal meaning is "to crush inward", not "to strongly influence")."

Well said and entirely sufferable. I too mock the pretentious and inaccurate verbiage (collectively called, by me anyway, "Corporate Crapspeak") More recently and just as irritating, he could have used "engage" Whistle
leonAzul
Posted: Friday, August 2, 2013 11:56:33 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,076
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
towan52 wrote:
LA posted: "I understand that the transformation of a noun to a verb is a natural extension of the living English language, but this one is problematic, to say the least. It is derived from the noun "liaison", itself originally a loan word from the French language. The debasement of this word of noble pedigree has largely been perpetrated by that bottomless font of good taste commonly referred to as corporate culture (a suitably ambiguous oxymoron if ever there was one). Many people still cringe at the sound of "to liaise" in the same way that they resist "to interface" or the improper use of the verb "to impact" (its literal meaning is "to crush inward", not "to strongly influence")."

Well said and entirely sufferable. I too mock the pretentious and inaccurate verbiage (collectively called, by me anyway, "Corporate Crapspeak") More recently and just as irritating, he could have used "engage" Whistle

In this example, "to engage" would be wrong not because it is a pretentious word, but because it means something else. In my opinion, the word that best covers the two ideas would be "to refer", but "to connect" is also well-understood in colloquial English for the idea of establishing a relationship.

To be clear, I have no issue with the jargon that arises within a particular area for the sake of clarity and to avoid ambiguity or equivocation. It only becomes pretentious when it is misapplied out of context, at which point it becomes bafflegab.

Of course, if that is the convention among one's colleagues, then use the verb "to liaise" with impunity. As they say, when in Rome, do as the Romans.

They also say, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
Whistle
towan52
Posted: Friday, August 2, 2013 12:55:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,982
Neurons: 226,444
Location: Waco, Texas, United States
OK, back to being insufferable...Applause
Jacklynembrey
Posted: Friday, August 2, 2013 4:01:55 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 7/26/2013
Posts: 11
Neurons: 33
Location: USA
i have also same answer I'd use to liaise with instead of to connect with, because it literally means to create a relationship with somebody. IMHO it is more suitable, if you are speaking of people.you leonAzul done also great work to explain it.
leonAzul
Posted: Friday, August 2, 2013 7:24:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,076
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Jacklynembrey wrote:
i have also same answer I'd use to liaise with instead of to connect with, because it literally means to create a relationship with somebody. IMHO it is more suitable, if you are speaking of people.you leonAzul done also great work to explain it.

The thing is, that is not what "to liaise" means.

It means to establish or act in a particular kind of relationship, a liaison, that usually involves the coordination of professional agencies or conflict resolution.

Quote:
li·aise (l-z)
intr.v. li·aised, li·ais·ing, li·ais·es
1. To effect or establish a liaison.
2. To act or serve as a liaison officer.
[Back-formation from liaison.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


liaise [lɪˈeɪz]
vb
(intr; usually foll by with) to communicate and maintain contact (with)
[back formation from liaison]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


li•aise (liˈeɪz)

v.i. -aised, -ais•ing.
to form a liaison.
[1925–30; back formation from liaison]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

Verb 1. liaise - act between parties with a view to reconciling differences; "He interceded in the family dispute"; "He mediated a settlement"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liaise
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.