Parián
In my hometown there is a Mexican restaurant called "El Parián". Up until today I always figured that it was named after a town in Mexico. But today I was reading a story (El Medio Gallito) to a group of children where one page is written in English and the other in Spanish. It mentioned el parián and the English translation on the other page inferred that it was the market in the town square.
Is it really referring to a town, or it is a local term for market, or am I totally off the mark here'
20 Answers
I chose to use the word infer because the text itself did not make any distinction or not that would lead one to believe that El parián meant the market. It mentioned the market in the text, but more of a passing reference and not a focus in any way.
I think that, had the story actually talked more about the market I would have used the word 'imply'. However, since the word was simply mentioned and then never referred to again, I chose to use the word 'infer'.
I guess you could say that I think of infer as if I figured it out and imply as if someone was giving me a hint without explicitly telling me.
Wow. Thank you James. I think that I might need to take a step back sometimes.
Ok, yeah, I totally agree, infer is not being used properly here. I inferred, the page implied (although very poorly).
I had a tough time separating what was in my head that I wanted to communicate that I did not stop to think back to what I had already said, which was incorrect.
No, you didn't. You said, "It mentioned el parián and the English translation on the other page inferred that it was the market in the town square." In your sentence, the subject of the verb infer is the translation, and a translation, being inanimate, can't infer anything.
Nathaniel, I think you can remember it like this:
You infer something FROM something, while you imply something TO someone.
- Your letter implied that you didn't have enough money, from which I inferred that you have lost your job.
That is exactly my point. I inferred from the text. I thought that I was using the word 'correctly'.
Nathaniel, I think you can remember it like this:
You infer something FROM something, while you imply something TO someone.
- Your letter implied that you didn't have enough money, from which I inferred that you have lost your job.
Ok, so that I can be correct in my understanding (and I try to be correct in my usage as well), what does infer mean to you (and, traditionally/officially)'
So, I am curious, do you still disagree with my choice of using infer?
Well, I for one do. That is to say, I do/will understand your intended meaning but I would never say that myself. To my mind, it is simply an error (one of a number that are commonly made in English [and by native English speakers]). It is, furthermore, my opinion that those who (like myself) wish to maintain the distinction will consider it an error. On the other hand, those who use them interchangeably (are unaware of the distinction) will not notice any difference, no matter which one you use.
So, I am curious, do you still disagree with my choice of using infer'
I chose to use the word infer because the text itself did not make any distinction or not that would lead one to believe that El parián meant the market. It mentioned the marklet in the text, but more of a passing reference and not a focus in any way.
I think that, had the story actually talked more about the market I would have used the word 'imply'. However, since the word was simply mentioned and then never referred to again, I chose to use the word 'infer'.
I guess you could say that I think of infer as if I figured it out and imply as if someone was ging me a hint without explicitly telling me.
It is, precisely, your final sentence/paragraph that embodies the distinction that we (those of us that care about such distinctions) wish to preserve.the paragraph implied/suggested/put forth an idea or, alternatively, from what was said/written you inferred/deduced/concluded something. It's all a question of who is doing what to whom'
infer and imply . . . I am in a dictionary kind of mood this morning (don't ask), so here is the usage note after infer from the American Heritage Dictionary (copyright):
Infer and imply, in their most frequently used senses, are carefully distinguished in modern usage. To imply is to state indirectly, hint, or intimate: The report implies that we were to blame. To infer is to draw a conclusion or make a deduction based on facts or indications: Reading the report led him to infer that we were to blame. In these senses the words are not interchangeable. Although *infer *sometimes appears in examples such as the first, it is not acceptable there, according to 92 percent of the Usage Panel [convened by the editors].
I was taught in high school not to mix these up . . .
OED says this (copyright):
infer. 4. To lead to (something) as a conclusion; to involve as a consequence; to imply. (Said of a fact or statement; sometimes, of the person who makes the statement.)
This use is widely considered to be incorrect, esp. with a person as the subject.
OED has quotes supporting definition # 4, dating from 1530 to 1973.
I would be interested to hear from UK citizens whether using "infer" to mean "imply" is considered incorrect in the schools there.
Thanks James, that helps alot. I decided to look it up on Wikipedia.org and came up with this:
El Parían es una voz de origen tagalo (filipino), que significa mercado. En México durante el siglo XVIII y XIX se construye este tipo de equipamiento en diversas ciudades. Su importancia radica en el tipo de productos que ahí se comercializaban telas, zapatos, perlas, entre muchos productos finos y de importación.
El parían separa a los compradores comunes de los ricos compradores, el Parián a diferencia de los comunes portales, se construye como un edificio cerrado conformado por calles internas y locales para la venta. En todos los casos su construcción está vinculada al fin de la época colonial y a la concentración de riqueza en ese momento. Su construcción se efectúa en centros mineros o centros comerciales importantes.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/11633361
I'm not really one for basing my English on a dictionary and was merely saying before that "inferred" sounded incorrect. If the distinction has been lost in parts of the United States of indeed in parts of Britain then so be it. It isn't really a big deal in itself but more an interest in English usage across the globe.
The 3rd Unabridged represents a major watershed in American dictionaries (an important transition [to use the terms of a previous thread] from "prescriptive" to "descriptive"). Until that time they had been quite liberal (or conservative, depending on ones point of view) about labeling certain usages as "mistaken" or "considered incorrect by ..."). There were, of course, many things in the 3rd to which English teachers objected (because they were not labeled as being "disapproved") but the imply/infer distinction was especially a "cause celebre".
Jamás he escuchado usar la palabra "parián" en México.
Also from New York and I consider the use of "inferred" in the original post to be incorrect (albeit a common error). I would also take exception to the usage in 3rd and 4th entries that James cited). In the U.S. is was, I believe, the 3rd Edition of the Webster's Unabridged International dictionary (sometime in the 60's-70's) that started listing this as an "accepted" meaning (that is to say they stopped labeling it as a mistaken usage for the preferred "implied"). At the time, this was the cause for great consternation among English teachers who had been taking pains to explain the difference between "infer" and "imply". As I understand it (and as James' citation suggests) this is a battle (for the preservation of meanings/distinctions) that has already been lost in the U.S. Thus, the few of us that still maintain the distinction (in the U.S.) are viewed as reactionaries.
The OED still includes the disclaimer "This use is widely considered to be incorrect, esp. with a person as the subject." for this usage (more power to 'em).
