have it rampant in the school

[GoodTaste]

Is "have the campus bullying rampant in the school" natural in English? Should it be "have made the campus bullying rampant in the school"? Or should it be "for having the campus bullying rampant in the school"?

========================

Mr.A: Why is campus bullying rampant in this school?
Mr.B: One reason is said to be that the dean takes bribes from rich parents. The kids that bully are usually the children of these parents.
Mr.A: An anecdotal evidence?
Mr.B: More than that. Some law-abiding teachers are investigating it and collecting reliable proofs. I think they've almost got sufficent evidence by now.
Mr.A: So the dean is responsible to have the campus bullying rampant in the school?
Mr.B: I believe it is exactly the case.

Source: English dialogue - Learn to design it (from my notebook).

 

[teechar]

No, it's not natural.

Source: English dialogue - Learn to design it (from my notebook).

That's not a proper citation. What is "Learn to design it"?

 

[Tarheel]

GoodTaste, is that supposed to be a natural dialogue?

You might try:

So it's the dean's fault that there is bullying going on at this school?

(The dean is unlikely to agree with that.)

 

[GoodTaste]

Okay. Here's the version after Piscean's edit. I am curious what is a completely natural version in English. Feel free to offer your cherished writing of it.


Mr.A: Why is bullying rampant in this school?
Mr.B: One reason is said to be that the dean takes bribes from rich parents. The kids that bully are usually the children of these parents.
Mr.A: Anecdotal evidence?
Mr.B: More than that. Some honest teachers are investigating it and collecting reliable proof. I think they've almost got sufficient evidence by now.
Mr.A: So the dean is responsible for the bullying rampant in the school?
Mr.B: I believe that is exactly the case.

 

[Tarheel]

Piscean said that his version is slightly less unnatural than the original.

How about this? I'll take the first person's part, and you take the second person's part.

Tarheel: There has been a lot of bullying going on at this school lately.

 

[emsr2d2]

Piscean said his version was less unnatural. That doesn't mean it's not actually natural! Are you looking for a less formal dialogue?

 

[GoodTaste]

Piscean said his version was less unnatural. That doesn't mean it's not actually natural! Are you looking for a less formal dialogue?

Yes. I want a casual talk in a barroom.


Tarheel: There has been a lot of bullying going on at this school lately.
GT: It is said the dean is greased.
Tarheel: Anecdotal evidence?
GT: More than that. Some teachers are trying to play the police role: Looking into it to find out the truth.
Tar: Surely the dean is the culprit?
GT: Exactly!

 

[tzfujimino]

Tz: What about the parents? They will never get away with it.

 

[GoodTaste]

Tz: What about the parents? They will never get away with it.

Traditionally, taking bribes is much worse than bribing. The dean is the major culprit. China has only very recently begun to punish people who bribe rather than only punishing people who take bribes.

BTW, can you read Chinese? (Like: "为什么这里的校园欺凌如此猖獗？“ ”听说校长受贿……“）

 

[probus]

China has only very recently begun to punish people who bribe rather than only punishing people who take bribes

It is quite different in my home, Canada. The person offering a bribe is as guilty as the person taking it. I believe this is so in most if not all Western countries.

 

[tzfujimino]

BTW, can you read Chinese?

I can't, but I've just used Google Translate to make out what they mean. (I'm surprised it does a good job.)

 

[Tarheel]

Yes. I want a casual talk in a barroom.


Tarheel: There has been a lot of bullying going on at this school lately.
GT: It is said the dean is greased.
Tarheel: Anecdotal evidence?
GT: More than that. Some teachers are trying to play the police role: Looking into it to find out the truth.
Tar: Surely the dean is the culprit?
GT: Exactly!

The original dialogue seemed to start in the middle of a conversation. Also, my intent was for us to take turns. It was not for you to take both sides of the conversation.

The scenario is entirely unnatural. Teachers are neither trained nor paid to be investigators. Apparently, certain teachers are honest and can be trusted. The rest are not honest and can't be trusted. (You did eliminate the "honest teachers" part in your version.)

I find that dialogue unnatural, and I certainly wouldn't have spoken those lines you gave me. (Especially "Anecdotal evidence?")

 

[Tarheel]

It seems that now we have found the dean guilty of taking bribes, and the "evidence" is pure hearsay.

The dean is getting a raw deal here. He might not be guilty of anything for all we know.

Rumors don't have to be based on fact

 

[GoodTaste]

my intent was for us to take turns. It was not for you to take both sides of the conversation.

I knew it. I wanted to see a direct comparison of my expression and yours.

The scenario is entirely unnatural. Teachers are neither trained nor paid to be investigators.

Professionalism is basically new in China yet it is a time-honored practice in the U.S.. That is why China is still an authoritarian country while America is a democracy. You've mixed the different backgrounds and criticized it as "entirely unnatural" - which is simply the case in America. The authoritarian philosophy is: "You don't know nothing? It is okay and you can still be a good official if you obey me - the authority in power." Now you may know why honest teachers have to do an investigative job that they are neither familiar nor trained to - because professionals are few, not to mention widespread corruption in the political and legal systems in this country. If you do nothing, no one will do for you unless you are lucky enough.

 

[Tarheel]

Professionalism is basically new in China yet it is a time-honored practice in the U.S.. That is why China is still an authoritarian country while America is a democracy. You've mixed the different backgrounds and criticized it as "entirely unnatural" - which is simply the case in America. The authoritarian philosophy is: "You don't know anything? It is okay and you can still be a good official if you obey me - the authority in power." Now you may know why honest teachers have to do an investigative job that they are neither familiar with nor trained to do - because professionals are few, not to mention that there is widespread corruption in the political and legal systems in this country. If you do nothing, no one will do anything for you unless you are lucky

It's an interesting conversation. I was speaking of course from my own experience. (A natural thing to do.)

 

[GoodTaste]

Isn't in informal or collocquial English, "You don't know nothing?" = "You don't know anything?"

 

[tzfujimino]

Isn't it informal or colloquial English, "You don't know nothing?" = "You don't know anything?"

It's non-standard grammar. We (non-native speakers) shouldn't use that construction.

 

[GoodTaste]

I'd have no idea what that meant,

Grease here means to bribe. See definition 8 in Random House Unabridged Dictionary of American English.

 

[GoodTaste]

It's non-standard grammar. We (non-native speakers) shouldn't use that construction.

It depends on context. The authoritarian philosophy has a notorious part - "Reading Is Useless" - The followers of authoritarianism are proud of being uncouth. The logic is clear, reading makes one reasonable; and if one was reasonable, one doesn't obey authority blindly and firmly. I used "don't know nothing" as a sarcasm to the authoritarian practice.

 

[Tarheel]

Isn't in informal or collocquial English, "You don't know nothing?" = "You don't know anything?"

You'd have to be using it in the right context for it to mean that. Otherwise, it's just wrong.

My advice is to not use it that way. In other words, don't use it at all.