 sj |
||
|
||
For pedants only
|
|
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Steve Parkes Date: 16 Oct 01 - 03:10 AM I don't know what the element, but that's what he sediment! Steve |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Ebbie Date: 15 Oct 01 - 08:04 PM That's an impediment! Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Willa Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:07 PM Liland; yes, it could be that sort of pediment! |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Haruo Date: 15 Oct 01 - 07:01 PM Maybe it's a botanical term, a variant spelling of the feminine for "peduncle". Liland thinking freely |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 15 Oct 01 - 10:36 AM According to the site I listed above: (and we all know that if it's on the 'net it must be true) The ellipsis can also be used to indicate a pause in the flow of a sentence and is especially useful in quoted speech: Juan thought and thought . . . and then thought some more. "I'm wondering . . ." Juan said, bemused. And also from the same site: If the omission comes at the end of a sentence, the ellipsis will be placed after the period, making a total of four dots. . . . See how that works? Notice that there is no space between the period and the last character of the sentence. And finally, The plural of ellipsis is ellipses (in case someone asks), but the points themselves (the dots that make up the ellipsis) are called ellipsis points or ellipsis marks. Mary (NOT a pedant!, really)
|
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: artbrooks Date: 14 Oct 01 - 08:44 PM Gloredhel, according to the same style site cited above, an ellipses [note spelling] is used to mark omitted words. On the other hand, there is no normally accepted form of punctuation to be used if one's thoughts are basically trailing off into the great uncharted void. **BG** |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 14 Oct 01 - 08:07 PM Dicho, I hate to be pedant *G*...but... this link seems to support the theory for a difference in American and British/Canadian punctuation preferences. I'm not sure about this particular link, but there were several when I searched on Google for British/ quotation/ marks. The only reason I noticed this (NO, I'm really not a pedant) was that I was doing some proofreading for an Irishman and this just about drove me crazy. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: robomatic Date: 14 Oct 01 - 04:37 PM As a true red white & blue American I want to second mousethief on the Yankee propensity for down-culture expression. I think it's interesting because it's due to an anti-individualistic motive. Most of us see no problem in obtaining an education, but it's perceived as gauche to call attention to it. The hideous mis-use of apostrophes made the front pages in Anchorage this Summer. Have seen no sign of it in the States. Among my co-workers is a disturbing misuse of 'myself' such as "Call myself when you get this message." It drives me up the wall (and round the bend). |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:56 PM Yeah, it's sort of like...you know, when you... - LH |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Paul from Hull Date: 14 Oct 01 - 01:02 PM *G* |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Oct 01 - 04:10 AM Then again, maybe I just do it to piss people off......................... Spaw (:<)) |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Oct 01 - 04:07 AM I don't personally give a turkey........Ya' see, I use them as a pause.....some short...............and some long. It makes what I am trying to say a bit more, uh.....how do I say it?....hmmmm...Hopefully,coversational. I also tend to end sentences with unspoken thoughts....like, how I feel about pedants in general.....Well...................... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Ebbie Date: 14 Oct 01 - 12:15 AM Gloredhel, my sources say that three dots is sufficient... Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Gloredhel Date: 13 Oct 01 - 08:41 PM A pedant's favorite insult: "People will soon be referring to you in the pluperfect tense!" ArtBrooks, if you do tend to end sentences with an elipsis, at least do it properly, with only four periods. Three means that you haven't finished, and five or more is just wrong.... |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Paul from Hull Date: 13 Oct 01 - 08:11 PM Hehehehehee! |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: rangeroger Date: 13 Oct 01 - 08:00 PM Paul,it was Willa who proved I could start a sentence with but. And end one too. rr |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Paul from Hull Date: 13 Oct 01 - 04:58 PM *G* Well I think you were in on the original 'joke' werent you, M'dear....*G* |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Willa Date: 13 Oct 01 - 03:58 PM Certainly did, Paul. Just shows some people do read thread titles carefully! |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Paul from Hull Date: 13 Oct 01 - 09:46 AM *LOL* Rangeroger!!! (Sorry everyone else, you wont get the joke, I dont suppose) |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Willa Date: 13 Oct 01 - 09:20 AM Liland. You are correct about the square root of minus 1, though some pedants would insist upon calling the number -1 negative 1. Les/Manchester. Yes, there are polymathic pedants. I hate to hear team managers claim that their players give 110% effort. Willa (tongue in cheek again!) |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Haruo Date: 13 Oct 01 - 04:27 AM Upright query, GUEST,Les/ Manchester uk! Powerful surmises! Liland who hopes they don't all pounce at once, it could be unsettling |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: GUEST,Les/ Manchester uk Date: 13 Oct 01 - 04:05 AM Are pedants generally specific? Are they just language pedants or do they pedant on number as well? I am finding this very difficult to construct, I feel many pedants ready to pounce. But would they care about the incorrect use of percentage or probability? Maybe 99% probably don't care? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Haruo Date: 13 Oct 01 - 03:24 AM Isn't the square root of minus one "i"? Liland who's not the mathematician he is the linguist |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: GUEST,Les/ Manchester uk Date: 13 Oct 01 - 03:22 AM There is a pub in Manchester called The Land 'O' Cakes. Pedant on that? and (sic) what is the square root of minus 1. And this too
|
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: rangeroger Date: 12 Oct 01 - 08:04 PM OK,I'm here.Now what do I do? rr |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Haruo Date: 12 Oct 01 - 07:56 PM Speaking of email (retpoŝto to us green-star folks; emajlo means enamel), some time back some of my email providers wanted me to log on (aka logon) and later to log off (or logoff), while others insisted I log in and thereafter log out. They, too, were not in agreement as to whether I was using them for email, Email or e-mail. The subsequent downturn in what virtually passes for an economy has, I think, applied a sort of Darwinian selection process (theistic or not as your taste runneth) to the issue, and there is now less typodiversity. Liland |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 12 Oct 01 - 05:01 PM Mary in KY, BOTH British and American publishers put the period, comma, etc. inside the " marks. Just to make certain, I checked my collection of English and American first editions and found the same convention in both. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: mousethief Date: 12 Oct 01 - 04:08 PM What's wrong with neologisms? "Normalcy" has a certain charm. Remember when "coastal" was first coined it was thought to be barbarous both on the east coast of the USA and in old Blightey. The yanks have gotten over it; some Britspeakologists still get their hackles up. Comes from having a coast that must be measured in feet rather than miles. :) Alex |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 12 Oct 01 - 02:23 PM That unfortunate usage, "Normalcy", was popularized, so to speak, by neither of the Roosevelts but by Warren G. Harding. It was immediately attacked, vilified, and ridiculed by the press and by us pedants, but it survived, more's the pity. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: artbrooks Date: 12 Oct 01 - 01:30 PM Every dictionary I own, at work and at home, has "its/it's" marked or highlighted in some manner. I think I have a mental block about that word. Otherwise, I do ok for a Yank, except for an unfortunate tendency to end sentences with a set of periods..... |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Steve Parkes Date: 12 Oct 01 - 10:54 AM Cletus, aer kid, theer ay a lot yo con say tew that! Br>Steve, in the Black Country |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: GUEST,CLETUS Date: 12 Oct 01 - 10:49 AM Well I shur am surprized ta see that thizzeer subjeck dun showed up heer on Mudcat. An I gotta tell yall thet it makes me rite sorry ta see so menny uv you tockin bowt it. I aint red nun uv yur stuff cuz I jes doan holt with nobuddy messin around with kidz an doin thet nasty sexshul stuff. Yall needs ta git yersevs sum perfeshunal help ur sumpin. Ima gonna git on outta heer now cuz I doan want nobuddy thinkin thet I got ennything ta do with thizzeer kinda stuff. CLETUS |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 12 Oct 01 - 10:46 AM Yes Steve, do you remember them? *G* Several years ago I had a link to "Brit Speak" which gave examples of the differences in American and English punctuation. (Americans like to put the period inside the quotes, "like this.") I can't find that info again. Has anybody seen anything like it? Steve, I like your second link above. I'll follow some of the links there. Seems like I have too much time on my hands today! |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: mousethief Date: 12 Oct 01 - 10:34 AM Well added, Wolf. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: SharonA Date: 12 Oct 01 - 10:16 AM Thanks, Dicho and Mary! |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: GUEST,Steve Parkes Date: 12 Oct 01 - 10:10 AM You mean papers, Mary? *G* Snuffy--I'm a bit late here, but never mind. "Wo'n't"="woll not" ("woll" now an archaic form, superseded in the last two or three hundred years by "will"); Carroll was correct in his apostrophisation (oops--big word!) of the missing letters, but the convention nowadays is to use "won't" with one ap'phe--likewise "sha'n't". Whistle Stop, using "their" (plural) with "child" (singular) is generally acceped today as preferable to "his" (the pedantic form) or "his or her", which is clumsy. If you're speaking colloquially, it's OK to use the "gender-free" plural, but in formal writing, you may do better to recast the sentence if you can, and avoid the problem altogether. Anyway, Lewis Carroll did it, and if it was good enough for him ..! Steve If you like this kind of thing, check out Take our word for it and World wide words. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 12 Oct 01 - 07:51 AM SharonA, RE: email I read somewhere that a word begins as capitalized and hyphenated (E-Mail) but as times goes on and it's used more frequently, it changes to e-mail, then email. Also Internet, internet, 'net, and net. I just watch large newspapers because they usually have a consistent policy. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Oct 01 - 07:03 AM May I add to Mousethief's two categories of bad English the most frequent category: (3) slips and mistakes: neither done on purpose nor because the person doesn't know better (the first Mudcat instance that comes to my mind for its funny double-sense is the line Please make it clear that I did NOT right that parody Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Crazy Eddie Date: 12 Oct 01 - 06:46 AM Gervase, I don't know much about Journalistic conventions. I learned about collective nouns in Primary school when I was ten years old. Our teacher at the time was one year away from retirement, & I suspect he may have been teaching, from an older syllabus! Since then, I've met people who've attended school until 17 yrs old, and they had never been taught basic grammar. After all, what is life if one cannot discuss prepositions, adverbial clauses, adjectival nouns; and even better, homophones.... homographs...... acronyms......... port-manteau words ..........and ....... ..................... Eddie is leaving the computer now, before he becomes over-excited..................... |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Gervase Date: 12 Oct 01 - 06:27 AM Crazy Eddie, It's a journalistic convention in the UK that sports teams are regarded as plural. Where I worked it used to cause all sorts of harrumphing and sighing from the linguistic purists in general news, but we excused the sweaties on the grounds that they were half-literate eejits writing for the illiterate, so it didn't matter! (Tolerant places, newspapers. Our nickname for the sports dept was 'toys and games', the features section was usually 'the shallow end' and the sub-editors who laid out the pages and corrected our howlers were dismissed as the 'hod carriers') |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Oct 01 - 05:57 PM Sharon A, just looked in the guide my cable provider gave me. It has Email. I think I have used all of your possibilities at some time. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Oct 01 - 05:53 PM Sharon A, I looked in Small Business Office 2000 for Dummies and found e-mail. Another book has the same. I would guess the "e" means electronic. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: mousethief Date: 11 Oct 01 - 05:13 PM Sorry. Line *IS* fuzzy. Sheesh. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: mousethief Date: 11 Oct 01 - 05:06 PM I differentiate between two kinds of bad English: (1) Done on purpose for some reason (to keep a rhyme, for instance) (2) Done because the person doesn't know how to do it right. Items in 2 are always irritating. Items in 1 can be merely quaint (like "swungen/sungen") or downright grating (like "words she brang to me"). I imagine the line between the two categories are fuzzy and different for each person. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: SharonA Date: 11 Oct 01 - 04:26 PM Hey, pedants! Quick question: is the term correctly styled e mail or E mail? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Haruo Date: 11 Oct 01 - 03:40 PM "Songs she sang to me, words she brang to me..." How does (faux?) archaism in the second verse of Woodward's Christmas carol "Ding dong! Merrily on high" strike you? (The whole song can, I think, with its hyperelongated "glo>...>ria", profitably be viewed as a parody of "Shepherds in the field abiding" (what we Americans think of as "Angels we have heard on high"). E'en so here below, below,I note in passing that the Esperanto version makes no effort to preserve the archaism. And, for that matter, though translated by a Catholic sacerdote, it renders "priest" as "pastor", hence making it much more acceptable to us Baptists with our penchant for the Priesthood of the Believer. ;-) Liland |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Wyrd Sister Date: 11 Oct 01 - 03:04 PM Cos it's naming the type of word denoting actions.Whistle Stop, don't stop. The language needs you. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Snuffy Date: 10 Oct 01 - 06:40 PM Why is "verb" a noun? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Mr Red Date: 10 Oct 01 - 05:57 PM Orac - aint yo never bin to the Black Coontry owr kid? mousethief - In NZ & Oz anything and everything can become verb (transitive or intransitive) or if it ewasn't it is now a noun. I think i will have me a relax now. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: mousethief Date: 10 Oct 01 - 11:21 AM Orac, I think there is a sort of "poverty chic" in American language, where people affect a "homier than thou" sort of dialect. "It don't matter" or "Who-done-it" or "Ain'tcha" (for "haven't you") are sort of little attempts to be folksy. (There's a million of 'em!) At least, that's how I use them. (See, you knew I was affected!) And that's how they sound to my ear. And let's face it, would David Gates have had a smash top-ten hit with "It doesn't matter to me"? "The light I never knowed" is of course a cheap reach for a rhyme. It doesn't grate the ear nearly as much as "Songs she sang to me, words she brang to me..." which my college Hebrew professor said haunted him as the ghastliest cheap-reach-for-a-rhyme in the English language. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Orac Date: 10 Oct 01 - 10:41 AM Ok.. there's another that pisses me off.. Hearing Americans say don't when they mean doesn't "It don't matter".. gasp... you wouldn't say "It do matter" would you? What perpetuates these appalling misuses of English is modern songwriters, who give bad usage common currency. One of the worse is Dylan.(Because of his great influence on a generation) "It ain't no use to sit and why babe" .. "That's a light I never nowd" ... double gasp. We could go into double negatives here too. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: mousethief Date: 10 Oct 01 - 10:38 AM Didn't realize "pedants" was a verb, let alone an uninflected verb. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: LR Mole Date: 10 Oct 01 - 10:35 AM Walking home one day I came upon a sign for VEGAT'BLES. They were for sale, I guess. Had to give the signmaker credit, though: obviously he'd known something was wrong on there. I could pedants all night. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Crazy Eddie Date: 10 Oct 01 - 09:32 AM HTML strikes again! |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Crazy Eddie Date: 10 Oct 01 - 09:28 AM Snuffy, An interisting use of a collective noun.
Nouns which stand for a group of people/ things are a special case. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Snuffy Date: 10 Oct 01 - 09:08 AM England is a smallish country England are going to the World Cup finals
|
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Whistle Stop Date: 10 Oct 01 - 07:51 AM Wyrd, I am duly chastened. And Willa is correct; I asked for it. Dicho, I am all in favor of language reform, and I agree that we need to find a substitute for gender-based personal pronouns when referring to a person of unspecified gender. I would be happy with "it" as a substitute for "he" or "him". However, until such usage gains widewpread acceptance, I will continue to resist mixing the singular with the plural in the interest of gender neutrality. Now I will exit this thread before someone finds another chink in my armor. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Dicho (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Oct 01 - 12:55 AM Whistle Stop- Some people are so worried about gender nowadays that they call for language reform. Why not replace all him-her-he-she with its? Then we can correctly address the chair as chair. Quotation marks: I dare anyone to find a first edition novel in which all of the quotation marks are correctly placed (if you take me up on this, you are a few eggs short of a dozen). |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Steve Latimer Date: 09 Oct 01 - 09:51 PM Hey there brother, who you jivin' with that Kozmic Debris? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: wysiwyg Date: 09 Oct 01 - 09:06 PM If any of you "pedants" are interested, the other thread of pedantry went to a part two-- yer welcome to join in at BS: Improper Letter S Endings, Etc., II ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Mr Red Date: 09 Oct 01 - 05:11 PM Apostrophes in all directions what's the stance on 'single' and "double" quotes? er..... make that quotation marks (I did say in all directions) .....pedants to dream aye there's the rub........ |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Willa Date: 09 Oct 01 - 04:31 PM Wyrd sister. I think that you are correct. Immediately one becomes pedantic, one becomes a target for other pedants. I'm ablatively posolute that someone will criticise my choice of words. Long live 'English' in all its infinite variety. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Wyrd Sister Date: 09 Oct 01 - 03:15 PM Horrendous! Whistle Stop, could that be "I would be remiss were I not to point this out"? That may put me in the other f-word territory. If so, I apologise. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Liz the Squeak Date: 09 Oct 01 - 03:10 PM And what's with flammable, inflammable and non-inflammable... it's either one or the other!! LTS |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: GUEST,Celtic Soul Date: 09 Oct 01 - 03:07 PM I cannot afford to be a pedant. My language skills are decent, but not up to the level necessary for pedantatiousness (I *am*, however, a creative vocabularist!!) My pet peeves are words that do not, or better put, should not exist that are used in seriousness. Like the fact that "Normalcy" is now considered a valid word because some illiterate President (FDR, I think?) did not know the correct word was "Normality". How about "Irregardless"? That sounds like a double negative to me. However, as it is so widely used (instead of the proper "regardless"), it too is in the dictionary. At least, it is on this side of the pond. Hopefully you Brits have more respect for the language than to add glaring errors into the dictionary. But again, who am I to cast stones? I am one of the ones that doesn't get the apostrophe thing! ;D |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Whistle Stop Date: 09 Oct 01 - 03:02 PM Grab, you have inadvertently (I assume) committed the sin of mixing the plural with the singular, which is a pet peeve of mine. You wrote "You can let the child learn written English naturally as their mother tongue, or you can teach it to them as a foreign language later on." As I am sure you realize, "child" is singular, while "their" and "them" are plural. The correct pronouns would be "his" and "him," even though I realize that people avoid using these because of the implied gender. Still, on a thread devoted to the joys of pedantry, I would be remiss if I did not point this out. Regards, WS |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: GUEST Date: 09 Oct 01 - 01:37 PM rules for writing good English. Especially noteworthy are #15, "be more or less specific whenever possible", and #16, "understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earthshaking ideas." Of special interest to pedants: #2, "Prepositions are not words to end sentences with" and #21, "even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed." |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Amos Date: 09 Oct 01 - 09:41 AM I daresay they did, under the law -- but perhaps they had other things on their minds at the time such as:
Hormone's You know -- this is painful! A |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Orac Date: 09 Oct 01 - 09:34 AM I while back I took a pic of a menu board outside a cafe that had 17 apostrophes on it. Wonderful things like "Jacket Potatoe's variou's filling's" ... great stuff!! ... note the apostrophe even in various!!! .. And the number of times I've seen "Mushy pea's" or "chip's". Everything these days that ends in an "s" has an apostrophe before it. I look for it daily everywhere I go. Much better than train spotting. Did anyone these days ever go the school? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Grab Date: 09 Oct 01 - 09:03 AM Willa, and then the perpetrators precipitate perpendicularly down their posterior... Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Haruo Date: 08 Oct 01 - 11:19 PM Yes if it is an adjective, no if it's a nominal phrase (i.e. — as opposed to e.g. — if "retentive" — ‘retentive’ to the Brits — here functions as a noun). And of course the adjectival phrase "anally retentive" should, as a rule, not be hyphenated (though, as "as a rule" implies, there are exceptions). Liland |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Amos Date: 08 Oct 01 - 10:50 PM And is there, or is there not, a hyphen in "anal retentive"? A |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Haruo Date: 08 Oct 01 - 10:12 PM I put the question mark inside the quotes if the question is inside the quotes and outside if outside; you done it proper. Liland |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Snuffy Date: 08 Oct 01 - 08:14 PM Rats! put a </a> instead of a </i> after sha'n't. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Snuffy Date: 08 Oct 01 - 07:41 PM In Lewis Carroll's 'Alice in Wonderland' there are two apostrophes in sha'n't - what did they do with won't, when it's "will not" rather than "would not"? And do you put the question mark inside or outside the quotes? WassaiL! V |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Willa Date: 08 Oct 01 - 06:07 PM Pedantry is a perilous pastime; pitfalls proliferate as its practicioners ponder their preference for past, present, perfect or pluperfect. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Wyrd Sister Date: 08 Oct 01 - 02:31 PM What about incorrect use of the reflexive pronoun while we're at it? "He and myself were.." Grrrr! |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Grab Date: 08 Oct 01 - 11:30 AM Helen, the cure is that parents read to their children, and then encourage children to read for themselves. You can let the child learn written English naturally as their mother tongue, or you can teach it to them as a foreign language later on. And anyone who was forced to learn a foreign language at school knows how effective that is. In other words, it's exclusively the fault of parents, not of teachers. But saying "your parents were lazy" probably won't go down too well with your teachees, even though it may be true. Quick apostrophe guide: use it ONLY when something belongs to someone else, or when a letter is missed out ("John's book isn't here."), otherwise don't use it. And how to encourage them to use it? Maybe a limit of 3 grammatical errors per page, after which you dock marks. That should encourage them to proof-read their work! Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Trevor Date: 08 Oct 01 - 10:59 AM And anyway, why does pirates always talks in the present tense? Have they never heard of the past pluperfect? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: GUEST,Kit Kat Date: 08 Oct 01 - 07:57 AM I too am reduced to seething and growling when I see misused apostrophes. I'm also irritated by the misuse of the word 'decimate'. If you mean 'reduce by one tenth', fine. Otherwise use 'annihilate' or 'destroy'. I am, however, a fully paid-up, practising pedant and proud of it! Kit Kat |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Gervase Date: 08 Oct 01 - 07:37 AM "cunjunction"? What the f***'s that when it's at home? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Gervase Date: 08 Oct 01 - 07:35 AM Waterhouse also wrote one of the best newspaper style guides ever - originally for the Daily Mirror, but later published for general use. Like Strunk and White in the US, it should be by the side of anyone who writes - it's pithy, funny and bang-on when it comes to what you should and shouldn't do with words. And, while we're on the subject of pedantry (not the cunjunction beginning the sentence!), there are a few solecisms that always get me harrumphing. One is the word "None" followed by a plural verb - as in "None of them are worth a fart". None is a contraction of "not one" and should always be followed by a singular verb - "None of them isworth a fart" Then there's the word enormity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with size, and means "monstrous wickedness". So, when I see a vicar talking about the enormity of the fund-raising task ahead, I shakes me head... Then there's.... ...sorry, I'm boring you. I'll get me coat... |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: GUEST,Steve Parkes Date: 08 Oct 01 - 06:38 AM I saw this in the papers on Saturday. Good for Mr Richars, say I. But columnist and writer Keith Waterhouse got there about thirty years earlier with his Association for the Annihilation of the Aberrant Apostrophe. O tempora! O more's!, as they say. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Murray MacLeod Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:56 AM Liland, I am with you there, it is quite common to hear the phrase "between you and I" uttered by people who should know better. And I wouldn't classify such concern as pedantry. True pedantry raises its gnarled head when the question of split infinitives arises. I have long held that there are occasions when it is desirable, nay compulsory, to split an infinitive for the sake of proper emphasis, despite what the rules of grammar might say. Murray |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Haruo Date: 08 Oct 01 - 03:16 AM You sure a pedant isn't a foot-powered insect? Or maybe a pismire with a sexual thing about kids? Liland PS: My own gripe is the use of "you and I" for "you and me", a grammatical faux pas to which my pastor is particularly prone, which is why I tend to skip church. He doesn't just say, "God is incredibly deeply committed to you and I" (a frighteningly widespread usage these days) — he says, "God is incredibly deeply committed to [pause] You [pause] and [pause] I." And, in expounding upon the Words of Institution on Communion Sunday, like this morning f'rexample, he commits that same pronominal sacrilege several times in quick succession. Almost enough to make me turn Episcopalian. |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Jim Dixon Date: 07 Oct 01 - 11:17 PM Welcome to the world of Zippy the Pinhead. (Are you having fun yet?) |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 07 Oct 01 - 09:53 PM I thought a pedant was something you hang round your neck on a chain.john (confused!) |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Paul from Hull Date: 07 Oct 01 - 07:40 PM *G* |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Noreen Date: 07 Oct 01 - 07:10 PM Zippy, Bungle's friend? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Snuffy Date: 07 Oct 01 - 06:29 PM Who he? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: toadfrog Date: 07 Oct 01 - 06:27 PM "Quotation marks" are an even greater annoyance. They even made it into "Zippy the Pinhead"! |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Snuffy Date: 07 Oct 01 - 06:22 PM I demand that the subjunctive be restored to it's rightful place in the language (but I could'nt care less about apostorphe's) WassaiL! V |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Willa Date: 07 Oct 01 - 06:18 PM "The widespread public belief that 'but' should not be used at the beginning of a sentence seems to be unshakeable. yet it has no foundation. In certain kinds of compound sentences, 'but' is used to introduce a balancing statement. In such circumstances, 'but' is most commonly placed after a semi-colon, but it can legitimately be placed at the beginning of the following sentence, and frequently is." Fowler's Modern English Usage Willa (Tongue in cheek!) |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Noreen Date: 07 Oct 01 - 06:05 PM A ranting erratic pedant, Alan? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Lanfranc Date: 07 Oct 01 - 05:58 PM It means that an apostrophically challenged smallholder sells both logs and eggs. Or he (or she?) could be a woodcarver specialising in ovals. It doubt it, however! How about punishing those who start a sentence with "But", instead of using "however"? I also wish it were possible to punish misuse or omission of the subjunctive. But then, I am only an erratic pedant! Or is the latter an oxymoron? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: pavane Date: 07 Oct 01 - 05:58 PM You have my support (and probably King Edward's Potatoe's too!) |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Noreen Date: 07 Oct 01 - 05:52 PM A farm, selling logs and eggs, but because of the possessive apostrophe it appeared that they were the log's eggs for sale? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Jim Dixon Date: 07 Oct 01 - 05:23 PM "Log's eggs" - what does that mean? |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Wyrd Sister Date: 07 Oct 01 - 02:28 PM Reminds me of a favourite sign I used to see, somewhere near Ilkley I think: "For Sale - Log's eggs" |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Liz the Squeak Date: 07 Oct 01 - 03:30 AM I saw a sign for 'hair weave's and plating' yesterday - I laughed so hard, everyone on the bus stared at me, but I couldn't explain why, half of them didn't even speak English! Love to have plated hair.... nice bit of silver?? LTS |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: wysiwyg Date: 07 Oct 01 - 12:23 AM Apostro'phe? Izzat Irish? Mudcat-- its bipedant this evening. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Helen Date: 07 Oct 01 - 12:21 AM So what is the cure for apostrophitis? I've been trying to make an impact on my *adult* university and vocational ed students for years but it just gets worse. I agree about the apostrophes being redistributed. The rule seems to be "when in doubt put it in...if you think of it at the time" or "if you think about an apostrophe then use it, whether it needs it or not, but if you don't think about one then you probably needed it". The other rule is to get a glazed/dazed look on your face, and look really annoyed whenever a teacher/trainer mentions the word "apostrophe". There is nothing in the world quite like that palpable disdain from a class of students. Helen |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: AliUK Date: 06 Oct 01 - 09:34 PM see this is the kinda thing that confuses my students. I teach them all the correct stuff and then they go to an english speaking country to study or work and get totally confused. I'm all for colloqualisms, but bad english. Never. ( says he sheepishly using his grammar check) |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: Jim Dixon Date: 06 Oct 01 - 09:21 PM There is a daily feature in the St. Paul Pioneer Press called Bulletin Board, of which I am a faithful reader and occasional contributor. There, they often refer to the "Apostrophe Redistribution Center." Here are three recent items:
Oopp's! Notes Mutti:
Oopp's! Here's ck of parts unknown:
Oopp's! From The Wordsmith of St. Paul: |
|
Subject: RE: For pedants only From: AliUK Date: 06 Oct 01 - 07:49 PM great site. As an EFL teacher it got me going. |
|
Subject: For pedants only From: Margo Date: 06 Oct 01 - 06:32 PM I subscribe to Michael Quinion's newsletter regarding his site "World Wide Words". I was particularly amused by this: Out There: Apostrophe Protection Society ------------------------------------------------------------------- While we're on the subject of the IgNobel Awards, we must mention the retired British journalist John Richards, who earlier this year founded the Apostrophe Protection Society. His aim is "preserving the correct use of this currently much abused punctuation mark in all forms of text written in the English language". You may feel, as I do, that he has given himself a hard task. However, he will be heartened by the award of the IgNobel Literature prize on Thursday for his efforts to "protect, promote and defend the differences between plural and possessive". You can learn more on his Web site at He's got a lot more great and interesting stuff regarding etymology. I think his site is in the links page here at Mudcat, but here's the address anyway: http://www.quinion.com/words/index.htm enjoy, Margo |
| Share Thread: |