Thank you. The usage of performance is indeed a bit illogical to me.
Is there an official source that I can use for citation - e.g. a style
guide?
Chris
Miss Elaine Eos wrote:
> In article <440ffc33$0$25198$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> cguttman <4everclever4@web.de> wrote:
>
>
>>>We can measure an athlete's performance.
>>>
>>>We can also measure the performance of MANY athletes.
>
>
>>If we measure the performance for running and swimming of the same
>>athlete, can I say that measured two performances?
>
>
> No. We can say we measured that athlete's performance in two areas.
> See "homonym":
>
>
>>><http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homonym>
>
>
> An athlete's performance is just one thing, even though it can be
> measured under many circumstances. It's like his height: we can measure
> his height while running, or while swimming, but we've still only
> measured the athlete's one and only height, not his heights. There is
> only one height or performance.
>
> With a bardic performance, the performance itself is a thing, apart from
> the performers. For this reason, there can be two or more of them, and
> there can be "performances."
>
> Interestingly, even with multiple things having performance being
> measured (as opposed to giving a performance), there's still just the
> one.
>
> "My new car really performs well on the highway. Of course, my old car
> performed well, too. They both have great performance; I enjoy driving
> both of them."
>
> But also...
>
> "That was some performance you gave in the meeting, this morning. While
> not quite as entertaining as the one last week, they were both great
> performances."
>
> Performance as a measure is singular. Performance as a display can be
> plural.
>
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
|