# The Internet



## nuruemp

Hi all, I doubt about these sentences. Can you spot my mistakes? Thank you
 

*"The Internet came up as a military communicative tool, which allowed some isolated computers to communicate within a small private net"*
** 

*"With the generalized use of the modern Internet, nowadays people gain access to a practically unlimited amount of information spread all over the world."*


*"Its use has changed our conception of the information availability. We have got used to have everything, everywhere, and this is something hard to do without. "*


----------



## JLanguage

nuruemp said:
			
		

> Hi all, I doubt about these sentences. Can you spot my mistakes? Thank you
> 
> 
> *"The Internet arose as a military communication tool which allowed a few isolated computers to communicate within a small private network"*
> 
> 
> *"With the growth of the Internet, people can now gain access to a practically unlimited amount of information located all over the world."*
> 
> 
> *" Use of the Internet has changed our conception of the information availability. We have become accustomed to having Internet access everywhere, and this is a hard thing to do without. "*


 
The above are my corrections. 

Enjoy,

-Jonathan.


----------



## Isotta

nuruemp said:
			
		

> Hi all, I doubt about these sentences. Can you spot my mistakes? Thank you
> 
> 
> *"The Internet was conceived as a military communicative tool which allowed a few isolated computers to communicate within a small private network"*
> 
> 
> 
> *"With the widespread use of the modern Internet[what about "with the rise of the Internet"], people now have access to a virtually unlimited amount of information spread all over the world."--[I don't know what to do with "spread" because I don't know if it modifies "people" or "information"]*
> 
> 
> *"Its use has changed our notion of information availability. We have grown accustomed to having everything and everywhere at our fingertips--which would be difficult to give up. "*


 
I hope you don't mind my somewhat liberal renduring of your text. 

Isotta.


----------



## elroy

JLanguage said:
			
		

> The above are my corrections.
> 
> Enjoy,
> 
> -Jonathan.


 
Working off of your corrections:

*"The Internet arose as a military communication tool that allowed a few isolated computers to communicate with each other within a small private network"


"With the growth of the Internet, people are now able to gain  access to a practically  an almost unlimited amount of information from all over the world."*


*" Use of the Internet has changed our conception of the  information availability. Because we have become accustomed to having Internet access everywhere, it would be difficult to do without it. "*


----------



## elroy

Isotta said:
			
		

> I hope you don't mind my somewhat liberal *rendering* (or *rendition*) of your text.
> 
> Isotta.


 
*"Its use has changed our notion of information availability. We have grown accustomed to having everything and  everywhere at our fingertips--and that would be difficult to give up. "*

It is not advisable for _which_ to modify a whole clause.


----------



## Isotta

Sorry elroy, I am in the middle of coining it, though thank you for your otherwise apt correction. "Rendering" means something different, as it were. 

Zot.


----------



## elroy

Isotta said:
			
		

> Sorry elroy, I am in the middle of coining it, though thank you for your otherwise apt correction. "Rendering" means something different, as it were.
> 
> Zot.


 
So what does "renduring" mean?


----------



## Isotta

The dictionary is already up to date. Within the next few weeks it should also add the advantage of its connotation--the evokation of process rather than product.

I rather like it, don't you?

Isotta.


----------



## elroy

Isotta said:
			
		

> The dictionary is already up to date. Within the next few weeks it should also add the advantage of its connotation--the evokation of process rather than product.
> 
> I rather like it, don't you?
> 
> Isotta.


 
So "renduring" means "rendition" - but "rendering" doesn't?  I'm highly confused.  Perhaps this is worth a new thread...


----------



## Isotta

No no, I was joking about the fact that "rendering" _is_ in the dictionary, as a gerund of course, though I was more than half-serious about better establishing its noun quality. 

"Rendering" sounds like an action or a process, whereas "rendition" sounds like a product. I like the workiness of "rendering." Sounds labored. Though perhaps I misused it here, as my edit took a few minutes, and I had best not sell myself short.

We could begin a new thread, though I am not sure what people would have to add?

Isotta.


----------



## Kelly B

Rendering and rendition are both acceptable, and essentially synonymous, here. 
I agree that rendering is more "active" and implies that you wrote it yourself; a rendition _can _be a simple repetition of the original but in your own voice, as it were. Here, we know that you wrote it, and putting it into your own voice involves rephrasing, so it is a distinction without a difference in this case.


----------



## elroy

Isotta said:
			
		

> No no, I was joking about the fact that "rendering" _is_ in the dictionary, as a gerund of course, though I was more than half-serious about better establishing its noun quality.
> 
> "Rendering" sounds like an action or a process, whereas "rendition" sounds like a product. I like the workiness of "rendering." Sounds labored. Though perhaps I misused it here, as my edit took a few minutes, and I had best not sell myself short.
> 
> We could begin a new thread, though I am not sure what people would have to add?
> 
> Isotta.


 
Ok, I completely misunderstood what was going on.

I did not mean to correct "rendering" to "rendition."  I corrected your typo.  I changed "renduring" to "rendering" and said "rendition" would also work (as a parenthetical suggestion).

I took your answer to mean that you were in the process of coining the nonexistent "renduring" - but you were talking about "rendering" - hence the confusion.

No need for a new thread - it's all clear now.


----------



## Bags

elroy said:
			
		

> *Use of the Internet has changed our conception of the availability of information."*


 
I don't think "information availability" would really be used... Something about the order implies that the "information" should be more tangible.

i.e. You can say "product availability", but it would be "availability of intelligence"...

If you see what I mean!


----------



## Isotta

elroy said:
			
		

> Ok, I completely misunderstood what was going on.
> 
> I did not mean to correct "rendering" to "rendition." I corrected your typo. I changed "renduring" to "rendering" and said "rendition" would also work (as a parenthetical suggestion).
> 
> I took your answer to mean that you were in the process of coining the nonexistent "renduring" - but you were talking about "rendering" - hence the confusion.
> 
> No need for a new thread - it's all clear now.


 
Ha! Laws, how funny! I thought you disagreed with my use of it, so I decided to be silly... Ah me, what a nut.

I've been misspelling words all over the place this week. Please excuse.

Isotta.


----------



## elroy

Bags said:
			
		

> I don't think "information availability" would really be used... Something about the order implies that the "information" should be more tangible.
> 
> i.e. You can say "product availability", but it would be "availability of intelligence"...
> 
> If you see what I mean!


 
I agree with you.  "Availability of information" sounds much better.


----------



## panjandrum

*



Its use has changed our conception concept of the information availability.

Click to expand...

*Arriving late to this thread ...
I am a bit surprised that "conception" hasn't been changed by anyone.
I would definitely prefer "concept".

Dump *the* 

I have no problems at all with *information availability*, but that could be because I work in the information business - this may seem jargon-like to others.


----------



## Isotta

Yes, though as you can see above, I opted for "notion" over both "concept" and "conception." To me it sounds much better, less overworked than the other two.

I also vote for omitting the "the" and for keeping "information availability." Whenever a noun phrase is possible, I tend to go for it.

Isotta.


----------



## elroy

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Arriving late to this thread ...
> I am a bit surprised that "conception" hasn't been changed by anyone.
> I would definitely prefer "concept".
> 
> Dump *the*
> 
> I have no problems at all with *information availability*, but that could be because I work in the information business - this may seem jargon-like to others.


 
Why do you prefer "concept"?

I actually think "conception" sounds better.

To me, "concept" is the actual idea; "conception" is the interpretation of that idea.  Rather akin to the more cumbersome "conceptualization."

I look forward to your comments.


----------



## elroy

Isotta said:
			
		

> Yes, though as you can see above, I opted for "notion" over both "concept" and "conception." To me it sounds much better, less overworked than the other two.
> 
> I also vote for omitting the "the" and for keeping "information availability." Whenever a noun phrase is possible, I tend to go for it.
> 
> Isotta.


 
Not to be finicky, but "availability of information" is also a noun phrase.  A noun phrase includes modifiers.  "Information" and "of information" are the adjectival modifiers in your version and my version, respectively.

I just think "availability of information" sounds smoother - and it's not like "information availability" is that much more concise.


----------



## Derringer

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Arriving late to this thread ...
> I am a bit surprised that "conception" hasn't been changed by anyone.
> I would definitely prefer "concept".
> 
> Dump *the*
> 
> I have no problems at all with *information availability*, but that could be because I work in the information business - this may seem jargon-like to others.



Since leaving book publishing for communications/public relations, I've noticed a lot of this kind of usage, which I think may have evolved from necessity of fitting lots of information into physical spaces (brochures, white papers, reports, and so forth).


----------



## Derringer

Derringer said:
			
		

> Since leaving book publishing for communications/public relations, I've noticed a lot of this kind of usage, which I think may have evolved from necessity of fitting lots of information into physical spaces (brochures, white papers, reports, and so forth).



Oops!  I should copy edit my replies before sending them. Try "...from the necessity of fitting lots of information into limited physical spaces..."


----------



## Isotta

elroy said:
			
		

> Not to be finicky, but "availability of information" is also a noun phrase. A noun phrase includes modifiers. "Information" and "of information" are the adjectival modifiers in your version and my version, respectively.
> 
> I just think "availability of information" sounds smoother - and it's not like "information availability" is that much more concise.




No, the prepositional phrase makes it heavier. By noun phrase I mean a noun preceded with another noun that would not, in the succession of adjectives preceding it, require a comma before it:

The glistening railroad tracks.
versus
The soft, furry kitten.

I hope that is clearer. 

Isotta.


----------



## panjandrum

elroy said:
			
		

> Why do you prefer "concept"?
> 
> I actually think "conception" sounds better.
> 
> To me, "concept" is the actual idea; "conception" is the interpretation of that idea. Rather akin to the more cumbersome "conceptualization."
> 
> I look forward to your comments.


Sorry for the delay in replying 
"... *conception of information availability*...", it seems to me, should be a process. I'm not quite sure what that process might be.

The Internet has changed the way we think about information, how easily we can access information, and the routes we use for that access. For me, what has changed is the actual idea of information availability. 

I used to think it was about libraries, paper, systems entirely local to my organisation and information that would be the same today as last month.

Now I think web, anywhere, multiple sources and information that is changing as the world changes.

It is an entirely new idea, a new understanding of information availability - a new concept.

... but I wouldn't die in a ditch over this 

... or over the choice between *information availability* and *availability of information*. Which of these you choose depends on what was used elsewhere in the piece and on the audience. For information specialists, I suggest that *information availability* will slide into the brain with no bother


----------



## elroy

Isotta said:
			
		

> No, the prepositional phrase makes it heavier. By noun phrase I mean a noun preceded with another noun that would not, in the succession of adjectives preceding it, require a comma before it:
> 
> The glistening railroad tracks.
> versus
> The soft, furry kitten.
> 
> I hope that is clearer.
> 
> Isotta.


 
That's a pretty idiosyncratic definition of a noun phrase, if you ask me. 

Besides, there are _no _adjectives preceding the version with the prepositional phrase - so I don't see how your definition applies.  

It seems to me you are differentiating between adjectives that are essential and ones that are not. Fair enough (even though I don't necessarily agree that that makes a difference), but even that criterion does not apply. "Availability of information" means exactly the same as "information availability" (as opposed to, say, "ample, accessible information availability") and the difference is purely stylistic. I happen to find the version with "of" smoother and more natural-sounding. You don't.

It has nothing to do with noun phrases.


----------



## elroy

panjandrum said:
			
		

> Sorry for the delay in replying
> "... *conception of information availability*...", it seems to me, should be a process. I'm not quite sure what that process might be.
> 
> The Internet has changed the way we think about information, how easily we can access information, and the routes we use for that access. For me, what has changed is the actual idea of information availability.
> 
> I used to think it was about libraries, paper, systems entirely local to my organisation and information that would be the same today as last month.
> 
> Now I think web, anywhere, multiple sources and information that is changing as the world changes.
> 
> It is an entirely new idea, a new understanding of information availability - a new concept.
> 
> ... but I wouldn't die in a ditch over this
> 
> ... or over the choice between *information availability* and *availability of information*. Which of these you choose depends on what was used elsewhere in the piece and on the audience. For information specialists, I suggest that *information availability* will slide into the brain with no bother


 
I guess I see "conception" as the result of that process - which I guess is synonymous with "concept."  

Let me think about it more; chances are I'll agree with you!


----------



## Isotta

elroy said:
			
		

> That's a pretty idiosyncratic definition of a noun phrase, if you ask me.
> 
> Besides, there are _no _adjectives preceding the version with the prepositional phrase - so I don't see how your definition applies.
> 
> It seems to me you are differentiating between adjectives that are essential and ones that are not. Fair enough (even though I don't necessarily agree that that makes a difference), but even that criterion does not apply. "Availability of information" means exactly the same as "information availability" (as opposed to, say, "ample, accessible information availability") and the difference is purely stylistic. I happen to find the version with "of" smoother and more natural-sounding. You don't.
> 
> It has nothing to do with noun phrases.


 
No, no, I meant nouns that are used in adjective positions that are essential and thus become a noun phrase. It is stylistically preferable because it prenominal positions are generally more natural in English. Much easier on the ear, less debutant Latin student-sounding.

You may, of course, disagree. 

Though did nobody like "notion?"

Isotta.


----------



## Kelly B

I liked notion. It just took me a while to process the rest of the conversation.

I also like availability of information better. Our disagreement about it arises from parallel reasoning which arrives at different conclusions (that's true, but...): 
I think _information availability_ sounds more like a Latin-based-language speaker trying too hard to make it sound English. At least it wasn't written "information_'s_ availability", which would be the worst case of this phenomenon.


----------



## Isotta

Hmm, most interesting. Thank you for that; I can see it both ways now, though I still prefer the little noun group. I suppose it is up to the thread starter--as, of course, it always is.

Isotta.


----------



## elroy

Isotta said:
			
		

> No, no, I meant nouns that are used in adjective positions that are essential and thus become a noun phrase. It is stylistically preferable because it prenominal positions are generally more natural in English. Much easier on the ear, less debutant Latin student-sounding.
> 
> You may, of course, disagree.
> 
> Though did nobody like "notion?"
> 
> Isotta.


 
I generally agree with you; just not in this case (for whatever reason )

I don't know how I feel about "notion" yet.


----------



## elroy

Isotta said:
			
		

> Hmm, most interesting. Thank you for that; I can see it both ways now, though I still prefer the little noun group. I suppose it is up to the thread starter--as, of course, it always is.
> 
> Isotta.


 
Provided there are two legitimate options, of course.


----------



## Derringer

Isotta said:
			
		

> Hmm, most interesting. Thank you for that; I can see it both ways now, though I still prefer the little noun group. I suppose it is up to the thread starter--as, of course, it always is.
> 
> Isotta.


 
Okay, so just to be a wiseguy, I'm going to throw another wrench into the discussion. In formal, written English, if you move the object of the preposition (information) to the position of a noun modifier (information availability), there is an argument to be made that it should be in the possessive: "information's availability." Rather than talk about it as a concept, substitute another word for "information." I'm comfortable with the phrase "depending upon the availability of Issota" or "depending upon Issota's availability," but not "depending upon Issota availability."


----------



## elroy

Derringer said:
			
		

> Okay, so just to be a wiseguy, I'm going to throw another wrench into the discussion. In formal, written English, if you move the object of the preposition (information) to the position of a noun modifier (information availability), there is an argument to be made that it should be in the possessive: "information's availability." Rather than talk about it as a concept, substitute another word for "information." I'm comfortable with the phrase "depending upon the availability of Issota" or "depending upon Issota's availability," but not "depending upon Issota availability."


 
But that's purely dependent on the specific situation.

I'm hard put to come up with a universal rule, but I would say that the "possessive rule" does not always apply if the adjective refers to an inanimate object, idea, etc..

After all, you don't say _printer*'s *paper_, do you?


----------



## Derringer

elroy said:
			
		

> But that's purely dependent on the specific situation.
> 
> I'm hard put to come up with a universal rule, but I would say that the "possessive rule" does not always apply if the adjective refers to an inanimate object, idea, etc..
> 
> After all, you don't say _printer*'s *paper_, do you?


 
No, but in that phrase and others like it, trying to make the noun the object of a following preposition becomes extremely awkward. So you would say "printer paper," but never "paper of the printer." "House party" but not "party of the house." I don't think this has to do with inanimacy. "Availability" is a quality pertaining or belonging to "information," so logically the possessive is called for. "Printer" is not a quality of "paper," so the possessive isn't necessary.


----------



## elroy

Derringer said:
			
		

> No, but in that phrase and others like it, trying to make the noun the object of a following preposition becomes extremely awkward. So you would say "printer paper," but never "paper of the printer." "House party" but not "party of the house." I don't think this has to do with inanimacy. "Availability" is a quality pertaining or belonging to "information," so logically the possessive is called for. "Printer" is not a quality of "paper," so the possessive isn't necessary.


 
Fair enough.

But I don't think "availability" belongs to "information."  There is no possession involved.  You could not rewrite the sentence and say "Information possesses/contains/ availability," whereas you could say "Derringer has information."


----------



## panjandrum

Late entry and apology.

I feel that *notion* is too fanciful or frivolous for this purpose.

On the question of *information availability* - I have only now realised why this phrase seems so natural to me. 
It appears frequently in relation to risk management and business continuity. For example:



> *Information availability* is measured by a Service Level Agreement (SLA), which specifies and tracks the reliability (percentage of time the information is available) and speed (how quickly the information is used) of the information desired by the proper user.


 As *information availability* has quite specific meanings that are not directly relevant to the purpose of the sentence, I would wish to say something different.

So, contrary to my previous posts, I would now prefer *availability of information*.


----------



## Derringer

elroy said:
			
		

> Fair enough.
> 
> But I don't think "availability" belongs to "information." There is no possession involved. You could not rewrite the sentence and say "Information possesses/contains/ availability," whereas you could say "Derringer has information."



You could say that "information" *has* [the quality of] "availability."


----------



## elroy

Derringer said:
			
		

> You could say that "information" *has* [the quality of] "availability."


 
Which would sound unbearably awkward. 

(as awkward as "information's availability")


----------



## elroy

By the way, I had actually meant to add "has" to the list - but for some reason I didn't.

That explains the stray slash.


----------



## Derringer

elroy said:
			
		

> Which would sound unbearably awkward.
> 
> (as awkward as "information's availability")



Yes, it's not something you would normally say in conversation, but in structure, it's not different from "The information has credibility."


----------



## Derringer

Derringer said:
			
		

> Yes, it's not something you would normally say in conversation, but in structure, it's not different from "The information has credibility."



By the way, I don't find it at all awkward to say, "What is the information's availability?" I so find it far more pleasing to the ear to say, "What is the availability of the information?" But "What is the information availability?" sounds to me like pure bureaucrat-ese.


----------



## elroy

Derringer said:
			
		

> Yes, it's not something you would normally say in conversation, but in structure, it's not different from "The information has credibility."


 
Ok, but does that mean you can just use any word after "has"?  Of course not.  Furthermore, credibility is a descriptive quality that the information can have.  Availability isn't really much of a quality.  You're just saying that the information is there.  You may as well say "The information is available."

We could go on and on about this, but the fact remains that I can't imagine myself or most others speakers of English say something like "information's availability."


----------



## elroy

Derringer said:
			
		

> By the way, I don't find it at all awkward to say, "What is the information's availability?" I so find it far more pleasing to the ear to say, "What is the availability of the  information?" (no one suggested that...) But "What is the information availability?" sounds to me like pure bureaucrat-ese.


 
That's different, because you're referring to one _specific_ piece of information.

"The availability of information" (or "the information availability") place emphasis on the availability.  We do not know how _much _information there is, nor are we necessarily concered about it: we simply want to know how available the information is.

In your sentence ("What is the information's availability?"), it sounds to me more like there is a specific piece of information in question, and you are asking about that particular availability.

Either way, it sounds very awkward to me.  I agree that "information availability" is not preferable (which I clarified many a post ago), but that does not have any bearing on my preferance for "availability of information" and my aversion to "information's availability."


----------



## Derringer

elroy said:
			
		

> Ok, but does that mean you can just use any word after "has"? Of course not. Furthermore, credibility is a descriptive quality that the information can have. Availability isn't really much of a quality. You're just saying that the information is there. You may as well say "The information is available."
> 
> We could go on and on about this, but the fact remains that I can't imagine myself or most others speakers of English say something like "information's availability."



Or you could say the information is credible. And if you think availability isn't much of a quality, ask anyone desperate to find a mate if he or she agrees. And we'll just have to agree to disagree here about aesthetics of "information's availabilty."  I have no quarrel at all with "availability of information." "Information availability" is the phrase that drives me nuts.


----------



## elroy

Derringer said:
			
		

> Or you could say the information is credible. And if you think availability isn't much of a quality, ask anyone desperate to find a mate if he or she agrees. And we'll just have to agree to disagree here about aesthetics of "information's availabilty." I have no quarrel at all with "availability of information." "Information availability" is the phrase that drives me nuts.


 
Of course you could say that the information is credible, but I do maintain that availability is not a quality.   You're either there or you're not.  Whether you're there or not does not tell me anything about you.  Same goes for mate-seekers.  Whether potential significant others exist does not tell me anything about them.

I agree that "information availability" is ugly.  Nevertheless, I prefer it to "information's availability." 

Hey, at least we agree about "availability of information."


----------



## Derringer

"We have information stored at four locations."
"What's its availability?"
"The information's availability?"
"Yes."
"You can retrieve it during regular library hours on any Monday that doesn't actually follow a Sunday."

Sounds okay to me. AND it has the added attraction of actually following the rules of grammar. "Information availability," on the other hand, sounds like an index or measurement. 

"What's the information availability?"
"I'd say around 4.5."


----------



## elroy

Derringer said:
			
		

> "We have information stored at four locations."
> "What's its availability?"
> "The information's availability?"
> "Yes."
> "You can retrieve it during regular library hours on any Monday that doesn't actually follow a Sunday."


 
This only proves my earlier point about referring to one specific piece or set of information.  "Availability of information" is general.



> Sounds okay to me. AND it has the added attraction of actually following the rules of grammar. "Information availability," on the other hand, sounds like an index or measurement.
> 
> "What's the information availability?"
> "I'd say around 4.5."


 
All of the options follow the rules of grammar.   Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this debate. 

I think we've beat this topic to the ground, though - and probably scared everyone else away!


----------



## panjandrum

At risk of inflicting still more damage on the dead equine... I should just point out that Derringer's suggestion:


> Sounds okay to me. AND it has the added attraction of actually following the rules of grammar. "Information availability," on the other hand, sounds like an index or measurement.
> "What's the information availability?"
> "I'd say around 4.5."


 ... is spot on. See post #35 
The measurement is more likely to be expressed as a percentage.


----------

