Re: pre-Fowler shall/will

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-20, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:

> On May 20, 8:27 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> Have you never taught high school (or freshman) English composition?
>> Would their work not be better if they did, in fact, observe those
>> principles? Does one not walk before one can run? Did not Picasso and
>> Pollock create pretty fine representational paintings before they
>> experimented with new approaches?
>
> Do none of these usage guides counsel against excessive use of
> rhetorical questions?

Well, "omit needless words" might shut him up.


--
The three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency.
Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at
the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978]

[Les Cargill]

Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-05-20, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>
>> On May 20, 8:27 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Have you never taught high school (or freshman) English composition?
>>> Would their work not be better if they did, in fact, observe those
>>> principles? Does one not walk before one can run? Did not Picasso and
>>> Pollock create pretty fine representational paintings before they
>>> experimented with new approaches?
>>
>> Do none of these usage guides counsel against excessive use of
>> rhetorical questions?
>
> Well, "omit needless words" might shut him up.
>
>

.s/omit/vomit/g

--
Les Cargill

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-05-27, Brian M. Scott wrote:

> On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:17:56 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><gram...@verizon.net> wrote in
><news:93d26de6-4c30-4e4c...@dk8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
> in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
>
>> On May 25, 5:08 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>  But then, you have a habit of classifying as "wrong"
>>> anything that you don't expect.
>
>> No, I have a habit of classifying as "wrong" anything that
>> violates the principles of the Chicago Manual of Style,
>> the MLA Style Manual, and even the Harbrace College
>> Handbook, which is what we had in high school and which
>> is still in print, many edition-numbers later.
>
> ‘Stupid prescriptivist statements belong on a.u.e., not
> sci.lang.’ — Peter T. Daniels, Message-ID:
><35D815...@worldnet.att.net>#1/1, Date: 1998/08/17.


¡¡¡SCORE!!!


--
There's no money in poetry, but there's no poetry in
money either. --- Robert Graves

[Peter T. Daniels]

On May 27, 4:22 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-27, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 25 May 2013 15:17:56 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

> ><gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in

> ><news:93d26de6-4c30-4e4c...@dk8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
> > in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
>
> >> On May 25, 5:08 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >>>  But then, you have a habit of classifying as "wrong"
> >>> anything that you don't expect.
>
> >> No, I have a habit of classifying as "wrong" anything that
> >> violates the principles of the Chicago Manual of Style,
> >> the MLA Style Manual, and even the Harbrace College
> >> Handbook, which is what we had in high school and which
> >> is still in print, many edition-numbers later.
>
> > ‘Stupid prescriptivist statements belong on a.u.e., not
> > sci.lang.’  — Peter T. Daniels, Message-ID:

> ><35D81503.3...@worldnet.att.net>#1/1, Date: 1998/08/17.
>
> ¡¡¡SCORE!!!

Sigh.

The appropriate place for prescriptivism is in the preparation of
formal written prose.

That is what is regulated by the CMS and its ilk.

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-06-28, Brian M. Scott wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 20:34:31 +0100, Adam Funk
><a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
><news:7351aax...@news.ducksburg.com> in
> sci.lang,alt.usage.english:
>
>> On 2013-06-28, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>>> António Marques <anton...@sapo.pt> writes:
>
>>>> NB -ist means something like 'involved in', not 'user of' - though
>>>> the distinction can be blurred; but in the case of 'linguist' that
>>>> would require the person to speak a few hundreds of languages.
>
>>> How do you decide if the guy playing the piano in the band is
>>> sufficiently involved to be a "pianist"? What do you have to do
>>> besides burn down a house to become an "arsonist"?
>
>> Most Baptists don't actually baptize people.
>
> I’ve never seen a materialist materialize anything.

What do realists realize?


--
No sport is less organized than Calvinball!

[pauljk]

"Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message news:3jegaax...@news.ducksburg.com...

What do existentialists do that others don't?

pjk

[Tak To]

Dreams, sometimes.

>> What do realists realize?

Also dreams, sometimes.

> What do existentialists do that others don't?

They work on the existentials, just as
the differentialists work on the differentials.

;-)

Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-07-05, Tak To wrote:

> On 7/4/2013 1:30 PM, pauljk wrote:
>> "Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message news:3jegaax...@news.ducksburg.com...
>>> On 2013-06-28, Brian M. Scott wrote:

>>>> I’ve never seen a materialist materialize anything.
>
> Dreams, sometimes.
>
>>> What do realists realize?
>
> Also dreams, sometimes.
>
>> What do existentialists do that others don't?
>
> They work on the existentials, just as
> the differentialists work on the differentials.

integralists
physicists


--
"Mrs CJ and I avoid clichés like the plague."

[Tak To]

On 7/5/2013 11:08 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-07-05, Tak To wrote:
>
>> On 7/4/2013 1:30 PM, pauljk wrote:
>>> "Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message news:3jegaax...@news.ducksburg.com...
>>>> On 2013-06-28, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
>>>>> I’ve never seen a materialist materialize anything.
>>
>> Dreams, sometimes.
>>
>>>> What do realists realize?
>>
>> Also dreams, sometimes.
>>
>>> What do existentialists do that others don't?
>>
>> They work on the existentials, just as
>> the differentialists work on the differentials.
>
> integralists

I am thinking more in the line of "universialist",
which is the opposite to both "existentialist"
(logician?) and "differentialist" (moral
philosopher).

And of course one can be both a "unversialist" and
a "differentialist" (car mechanic).

> physicists

??

Egotists, gnomist, ...

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-07-05, Tak To wrote:

> On 7/5/2013 11:08 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2013-07-05, Tak To wrote:

>>> They work on the existentials, just as
>>> the differentialists work on the differentials.
>>
>> integralists
>
> I am thinking more in the line of "universialist",
> which is the opposite to both "existentialist"
> (logician?) and "differentialist" (moral
> philosopher).

I was thinking of differential/integral.

> And of course one can be both a "unversialist" and
> a "differentialist" (car mechanic).
>
>> physicists
>
> ??
>
> Egotists, gnomist, ...

There's nothing wrong with making garden gnomes.


--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
use more.

[pauljk]

"Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message news:geljaax...@news.ducksburg.com...

Awwww, okay.... But there is definitely something seriously wrong
with people buying and planting them around their houses. :-)

pjk

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 17:19:04 +1200, pauljk
<paul....@xtra.co.nz> wrote in
<news:kr891p$amb$1...@dont-email.me> in
sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english:

> "Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
> news:geljaax...@news.ducksburg.com...

>> On 2013-07-05, Tak To wrote:

[...]

>>> Egotists, gnomist, ...

>> There's nothing wrong with making garden gnomes.

> Awwww, okay.... But there is definitely something
> seriously wrong with people buying and planting them
> around their houses. :-)

Except in Oz: got to have a (G)Nome king in Oz!

Brian

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-07-06, Brian M. Scott wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 17:19:04 +1200, pauljk

>> "Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message

...
>>>> Egotists, gnomist, ...
>
>>> There's nothing wrong with making garden gnomes.
>
>> Awwww, okay.... But there is definitely something
>> seriously wrong with people buying and planting them
>> around their houses. :-)
>
> Except in Oz: got to have a (G)Nome king in Oz!

sitting on a grassy gnoll

ISTR Baum wrote a zillion of those books --- was only the 1st one ever
filmed?

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:55:51 +0100, Adam Funk
<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
<news:7ueqaax...@news.ducksburg.com> in
sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english:

> On 2013-07-06, Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2013 17:19:04 +1200, pauljk

>>> "Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message

[...]

>>>> There's nothing wrong with making garden gnomes.

>>> Awwww, okay.... But there is definitely something
>>> seriously wrong with people buying and planting them
>>> around their houses. :-)

>> Except in Oz: got to have a (G)Nome king in Oz!

> sitting on a grassy gnoll

> ISTR Baum wrote a zillion of those books ---

Only 14, but others picked up where he left off. The best
known is Ruth Plumly Thompson, who wrote another 19. John
R. Neill, who illustrated all of Baum’s but the first and
all of Thompson’s, wrote three; Jack Snow wrote two; Rachel
R. Cosgrove wrote one; and Eloise Jarvis McGraw and her
daughter Lauren Lynn McGraw wrote one. Those constitute the
so-called Famous Forty; all except the first were published
by Reilly & Lee.

Neill also wrote what would have been the 37th Oz book but
died before he could illustrate it, and it wasn’t published
until 1995, with additions and illustrations by Eric
Shanower.

The International Wizard of Oz Club published five more that
it considers canonical, two by Thompson, one by McGraw and
her daughter, one by Dick Martin, and one by Cosgrove. The
Baum Family Trust has commissioned Sherwood Smith to write
four new Oz novels, of which two have been published.

Eric Shanower has written and illustrated an Oz novel and
four Oz graphic novels of his own; I’ve read only one of the
graphic novels, but so far as I know, he sticks pretty close
to canon.

Then there’s a host of books that are clearly not
reconcilable with the canon.

> was only the 1st one ever filmed?

The Disney film ‘Return to Oz’ includes many elements of the
second and third novels. I didn’t know this, but apparently
there was a Canadian animated feature film of the second,
and Baum made a silent film version of the seventh. I
believe that there have been some Japanese animated films,
but I don’t know anything about them.

Brian

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-07-08, Brian M. Scott wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:55:51 +0100, Adam Funk

Far out!

>> was only the 1st one ever filmed?
>
> The Disney film ‘Return to Oz’ includes many elements of the
> second and third novels. I didn’t know this, but apparently
> there was a Canadian animated feature film of the second,
> and Baum made a silent film version of the seventh. I
> believe that there have been some Japanese animated films,
> but I don’t know anything about them.

R H Draney may know.


--
"Gonzo, is that the contract from the devil?"
"No, Kermit, it's worse than that. This is the bill from special
effects."

[Mari Conroy]

"pauljk" <paul....@xtra.co.nz> wrote in
news:kr891p$amb$1...@dont-email.me:

As long as the plant the responsibly, I don't see the harm. It's those
irresponsible people who leave them outside the fence, where they can
spread uncontrollably, or mingle them with other garden statuary and
allowing crossbreeding disasters like gnome-hatted flamingos and long-
legged gnomen, or gnomen-cupid hybrids rudely pissing into water
fountains, that ruin the whole thing.
A properly tended gnome garden is a beautiful thing, but takes much care
to keep in proper form and bounds.

TeaLady

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-07-08, Brian M. Scott wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:55:51 +0100, Adam Funk

>> ISTR Baum wrote a zillion of those books ---
>
> Only 14, but others picked up where he left off. The best
> known is Ruth Plumly Thompson, who wrote another 19. John
> R. Neill, who illustrated all of Baum’s but the first and
> all of Thompson’s, wrote three; Jack Snow wrote two; Rachel
> R. Cosgrove wrote one; and Eloise Jarvis McGraw and her
> daughter Lauren Lynn McGraw wrote one. Those constitute the
> so-called Famous Forty; all except the first were published
> by Reilly & Lee.
>
> Neill also wrote what would have been the 37th Oz book but
> died before he could illustrate it, and it wasn’t published
> until 1995, with additions and illustrations by Eric
> Shanower.
>
> The International Wizard of Oz Club published five more that
> it considers canonical, two by Thompson, one by McGraw and
> her daughter, one by Dick Martin, and one by Cosgrove. The
> Baum Family Trust has commissioned Sherwood Smith to write
> four new Oz novels, of which two have been published.

What are the criteria for canonicity?


--
Disagreeing with Donald Rumsfeld about bombing anybody who gets in our
way is not a crime in this country. It is a wise and honorable idea
that George Washington and Benjamin Franklin risked their lives for.
--- Hunter S Thompson

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:24:58 +0100, Adam Funk
<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
<news:al55bax...@news.ducksburg.com> in
sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english:

> On 2013-07-08, Brian M. Scott wrote:

[...]

>> The International Wizard of Oz Club published five more
>> that it considers canonical, two by Thompson, one by
>> McGraw and her daughter, one by Dick Martin, and one by
>> Cosgrove. The Baum Family Trust has commissioned
>> Sherwood Smith to write four new Oz novels, of which two
>> have been published.

> What are the criteria for canonicity?

I’m not a sufficiently serious fan to know for sure. My
impression is that the book has to be consistent with Baum’s
own books insofar as that’s possible and should use some of
the familiar characters. That is, it should not just be
consistent with Baum’s creation: it should have a real
connection with it.

Brian

[Adam Funk]

On 2013-07-12, Brian M. Scott wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 12:24:58 +0100, Adam Funk

>> What are the criteria for canonicity?
>
> I’m not a sufficiently serious fan to know for sure. My
> impression is that the book has to be consistent with Baum’s
> own books insofar as that’s possible and should use some of
> the familiar characters. That is, it should not just be
> consistent with Baum’s creation: it should have a real
> connection with it.

Yeah, a totally unrelated book would be [mathematically] consistent
with what's already in the canon. ;-)


--
A book lying idle on a shelf is wasted ammunition.
--- Henry Miller