----- Original Message -----
From: "Reef Fish" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 09:40
Subject: Re: [SCUBA-SE] Bob is a LIAR, NOT; but Lee IS (with PROOF by Lee)


> On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 07:49:29 -0600, Steven Catron
<[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Reef Fish" <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> >> #> Recruiting students to one of the Armed forces in the
> >> #> USA is one.  We recruit students for our universities and graduate
> >> #> departments.  We recruit faculty members.  College sports programs
> >> #> recruit good atheletes for their sports, etc., etc.
> >>
> >> Not to mention companies recruit managers and high ranking
> >> officers.  These recruiters are often called "head hunters".
> >
> >A 'recruiter' is one who recruits or *attempts* to recruit.  To say that
> >someone was 'recruited' implies that he/she joined a
movement/cause/group,
> >not that he/she was merely and unsuccessfully targeted by same.
>
> Steve, since you're the first responder from the USA, I'll give my
> reply, which applies to your post, and those of others NOT in the
> USA as well.
>
> If what you said were indeed the exclusive usage of "recruited",
> implying "success", then the term "successfully recruited" would be
> highly redundant, wouldn't it?  Yet you can easily find HUNDREDS of
> web pages in which that precise term "successfully recruited" are
> used.
You are correct.  And I believe the term IS redundant, or at least
unnecessary.  Or maybe it's superfluous, I'm not sure.  ;-)

<good examples snipped>

One caveat:  the examples you cited all seemed to be from marketing
websites.  Frequently marketers employ nonstandard usages to mislead their
audiences, or to place heightened emphasis on a point they fear their
audiences might miss.  I think that may be why they are stressing
"successfully" and its variants.  Or it may simply be that this is one of
those nuances of English, wherein a term may have different, subtle meanings
to members of an otherwise homogenous group.

Apologies to all if I'm becoming pedantic here, or not explaining myself
well.  I believe the question was how an American reader would interpret "x
recruited y".  I can't speak for others, though I believe my opinion
on this to be common, but if I were speaking about my experiences with
military recruiters and the representatives of the grad school I attended, I
would say that "the university reps recruited me," but the military
*attempted* to recruit me."  For me, "to be recruited" automatically implies
success on the part of the recruiting organization.  YMMV.

Could it be as simple as a case of "is the glass half full or half empty"?

> >In military
> >and other usage, a 'recruit' is someone who has joined the
> >organization,etc.; the term does not apply to those who heard the pitch
but
> >did not join.
>
> That usage is a NOUN.  Not verb transitive.
Granted.  I included that as a possible indicator of how the verb is
understood.  If the noun indicates success on the recruiter's part, it might
lead one to think that the verb indicates it as well.  Or it might not:
English can be such a mish-mash of rules, exceptions, and exceptions to
exceptions.

Do we have any English professors on the list?  Aaargh!!!  :-)

SC