IS or ARE
Peter Morris
- A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
- A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
I can see it either way. Number is a singular noun, so IS, but it refers
to multiple people so ARE. I'm not sure here.
Mark Brader
> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
"Are" is correct.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Information! ... We want information!"
m...@vex.net -- The Prisoner
annily
> Peter Morris asks about:
>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
>
> "Are" is correct.
I would have thought it's debatable. I would re-word the sentence
anyway, to something like "... but more are disgusted". Shorter and
simpler. I'm not sure "THE larger number" makes sense anyway. Shouldn't
it be "A larger number"?
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Mark Brader
>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
Mark Brader:
>> "Are" is correct.
"Annily":
> I would have thought it's debatable.
You would have been wrong.
> I would re-word the sentence anyway, to something like "... but more
> are disgusted".
That works too, yes.
> I'm not sure "THE larger number" makes sense anyway. Shouldn't
> it be "A larger number"?
Works either way for me.
--
Mark Brader "It's okay for us to love our country,
Toronto but we ought to spend most of our time
m...@vex.net making our country lovable." -- Andy Rooney
Fred
"Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
news:yMCdndF5IciKBc_W...@vex.net...
> Peter Morris:
>>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
>>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> "Are" is correct.
>
> "Annily":
>> I would have thought it's debatable.
>
> You would have been wrong.
>
>> I would re-word the sentence anyway, to something like "... but more
>> are disgusted".
......... 'but most are disgusted' sounds better to me.
D. Stussy
> Peter Morris asks about:
> > - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
> > - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
>
> "Are" is correct.
I disagree. "The larger number" is a singular form (even if it a
collective as an idiom).
For example: One says "The city council is ...." That is also a singular
form describing a collective, yet when they act as one, they are one.
"The" - a definite article implying one in number.
Now, had the sentence been:
"A few people are amused, but a larger number are disgusted."
Here, the indefinite article doesn't tie the subject to a collective acting
as one but leaves open the count. The reference becomes a plural
collective.
Mark Brader
> > > - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
> > > - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
Mark Brader:
> > "Are" is correct.
D. Stussy:
> I disagree.
You are not correct.
> "The larger number" is a singular form...
That is irrelevant. The sentence is about the people.
> For example: One says "The city council is ...." That is also a singular
> form describing a collective, yet when they act as one, they are one.
The people being amused or disgusted are not acting as one.
> "The" - a definite article implying one in number.
Irrelevant. The sentence is about the people.
> Now, had the sentence been:
>
> "A few people are amused, but a larger number are disgusted."
>
> Here, the indefinite article...
Also implies a singular, and is equally irrelevant.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Don't let it drive you crazy...
m...@vex.net | Leave the driving to us!" --Wayne & Shuster
My text in this article is in the public domain.
annily
> Peter Morris:
>>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
>>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> "Are" is correct.
>
> "Annily":
>> I would have thought it's debatable.
>
> You would have been wrong.
>
Care to explain your reasoning and/or authority for this view? In any
case, anything is debatable, and we are doing that now.
annily
Yes, OK. I was taking it as "a larger number", in which case "more"
would be correct, but I suppose "the larger number" implies everyone
other than the "few", in which case "most" is valid and "the larger
number" just means "the majority".
James Hogg
> "Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
> news:1JKdnX8H_Y7PGs_W...@vex.net...
>> Peter Morris asks about:
>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. -
>>> A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
>> "Are" is correct.
>
> I disagree. "The larger number" is a singular form (even if it a
> collective as an idiom).
>
> For example: One says "The city council is ...." That is also a
> singular form describing a collective, yet when they act as one, they
> are one.
>
> "The" - a definite article implying one in number.
"The" serves for both singular and plural. A sentence like "I've sold
the sheep" doesn't imply that I sold just one sheep.
--
James
HVS
> "Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
> news:1JKdnX8H_Y7PGs_W...@vex.net...
>> Peter Morris asks about:
>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE
>>> disgusted.
>>
>> "Are" is correct.
>
> I disagree. "The larger number" is a singular form (even if it
> a collective as an idiom).
>
> For example: One says "The city council is ...."
Depends where you are, and what follows. In BrE, "The city council
are..." is entirely possible.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Eric Walker
"Number" used to indicate multiplicity is a dangerous form, exactly
because it invariably produces such splits in readers. Even if the
reader ultimately agrees with whichever form the writer has chosen, that
brief "can that be right?" pause interrupts the smooth flow of ideas that
is every writer's goal.
Now I doubt that many people would write--
The number of men wearing hats this season are large.
--so "the number" seems, as logic and grammar suggest, singular. But in
uses like that prompting this thread, it's not at all clear what people
would or wouldn't find "normal"--which split is exactly why not to use
the term.
Ditto, incidentally:
The number this year are even larger than last year's.
(But some writers get around this by reference to "the numbers" in
castings like that one.)
Even worse is the form "a number", as in:
A number of men is/are wearing hats this season.
"A number" plainly wants "is", but it sounds freakish if used.
In short, it's a "skunked term", and to be avoided at all costs.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Stan Brown
<no_...@peter.co.uk>:
I don't believe "is" is possible, because a number, being an abstract
concept, cannot feel disgust; only people can.
The usual solution to this sort of conundrum is that "number" is
short for "number of people", which in turn is a sort of multi-word
subject rather than the prepositional phrase that it looks like.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Stan Brown
>
> Mark Brader wrote:
> > Peter Morris asks about:
> >> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
> >> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
> >
> > "Are" is correct.
>
> I would have thought it's debatable. I would re-word the sentence
> anyway, to something like "... but more are disgusted". Shorter and
> simpler. I'm not sure "THE larger number" makes sense anyway. Shouldn't
> it be "A larger number"?
I think "the" better than "a". Only two numbers are involved, the
number of amused persons and the number of disgusted persons. The
number of disgusted persons is unique and therefore merits the
definite article.
Stan Brown
I don't think we can assume that "amused" and"disgusted" are the only
alternatives. Perhaps 5% are amused, 10% are disgusted, and 85% are
indifferent. In that case "most" would be distinctly wrong.
Fred
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.25bcdfd78...@news.individual.net...
> Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:50:52 +1300 from Fred <r...@parachute.net.nz>:
>>
>> "Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
>> news:yMCdndF5IciKBc_W...@vex.net...
>> > Peter Morris:
>> >>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
>> >>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
>> >
>> > Mark Brader:
>> >>> "Are" is correct.
>> >
>> > "Annily":
>> >> I would have thought it's debatable.
>> >
>> > You would have been wrong.
>> >
>> >> I would re-word the sentence anyway, to something like "... but more
>> >> are disgusted".
>>
>> ......... 'but most are disgusted' sounds better to me.
>
> I don't think we can assume that "amused" and"disgusted" are the only
> alternatives. Perhaps 5% are amused, 10% are disgusted, and 85% are
> indifferent. In that case "most" would be distinctly wrong.
>
I'd agree with that if it referred to a few, and 'a' larger number. But it
doesn't.
Skitt
> from annily:
>> Mark Brader wrote:
>>> Peter Morris asks about:
>>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
>>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
>>>
>>> "Are" is correct.
>>
>> I would have thought it's debatable. I would re-word the sentence
>> anyway, to something like "... but more are disgusted". Shorter and
>> simpler. I'm not sure "THE larger number" makes sense anyway.
>> Shouldn't it be "A larger number"?
>
> I think "the" better than "a". Only two numbers are involved, the
> number of amused persons and the number of disgusted persons.
Why do you make that assumption? Context would determine what is involved.
> The number of disgusted persons is unique and therefore merits the
> definite article.
Another unwarranted assumption. Yes, there is a difference in meaning
between "the number of" and "a number of", but we have no way of knowing
which was meant.
--
Skitt (AmE)
is not very assuming today.
CDB
was the number that was large, but the men that were wearing hats.
Donna Richoux
You could think of it this way. Numbers are singular nouns only when we
are talking about the numbers themselves:
Four is a small number.
65 is the minimum age for a pension.
Usually numbers and numerical phrases -- quantifiers -- are describing
amounts of something else. When they count something discrete like
people or tickets, they need a plural verb.
A dozen were returned.
A great many are still there.
A third disapprove.
A large number are disgusted.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Peter Moylan
> "Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
> news:1JKdnX8H_Y7PGs_W...@vex.net...
>> Peter Morris asks about:
>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
>>
>> "Are" is correct.
>
> I disagree. "The larger number" is a singular form (even if it a
> collective as an idiom).
Have you ever met a disgusted number?
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
annily
> On 17/01/10 18:32, D. Stussy wrote:
>> "Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
>> news:1JKdnX8H_Y7PGs_W...@vex.net...
>>> Peter Morris asks about:
>>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted.
>>>> - A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
>>> "Are" is correct.
>> I disagree. "The larger number" is a singular form (even if it a
>> collective as an idiom).
>
> Have you ever met a disgusted number?
>
Probably not. Disgusting numbers, perhaps. But that doesn't help in the
decision between "is" and "are". I suppose it indicates that re-wording
would be a better choice.
Eric Walker
Re--
A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. -
A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
> I think "the" better than "a". Only two numbers are involved, the
> number of amused persons and the number of disgusted persons. The number
> of disgusted persons is unique and therefore merits the definite
> article.
No. It is the statement "the larger number" that tells us that
"disgusted" is the status of the largest number of persons falling into
any category, not vice-versa. The hypothesis someone else advanced of 5%
amused, 85% indifferent and 10% disgusted cannot be correct, else it
would be impossible for "the larger number" to be an apt description of
those who are disgusted--"there, "*a* larger number" would be needed.
Technically, it ought to be "the largest number", but using the
comparative for the absolute is an old and accepted form in English.
Eric Walker
> Eric Walker wrote:
[...]
>> Even worse is the form "a number", as in:
>>
>> A number of men is/are wearing hats this season.
>>
>> "A number" plainly wants "is", but it sounds freakish if used.
>>
>> In short, it's a "skunked term", and to be avoided at all costs.
>
> It depends who's performing the action (or existing in the state). It
> was the number that was large, but the men that were wearing hats.
Rather, it depends on how one parses the thing: is "of men" an adjectival
prepositional phrase modifying "number", or is "a number of" an
adjectical phrase modifying "men"? If "a number of" is replaced by the
vastly preferable "numerous", the issue vanishes. But as it is, much
confusion remains.
As to "a number" of: AskOxford says it is a "determinder", so use "are";
The Grammar Logs is puzzled and relies on "ear"; Everything Language
simply declares by _fiat_ that "a number of" is equivalent to "they";
Garner declares that the plurality is justified by synesis, which at
least has the virtue of sounding magesterial, but when looked up (in
Garner's book) turns out only to mean antigrammatical but idiomatic,
which seems tautological for idiom.
And so it goes, while poor little wallflower "numerous" waits to be asked
to dance.
Eric Walker
[...]
> Usually numbers and numerical phrases -- quantifiers -- are describing
> amounts of something else. When they count something discrete like
> people or tickets, they need a plural verb.
>
> A dozen were returned.
> A great many are still there.
> A third disapprove.
> A large number are disgusted.
That's a nice set of examples of common usage, but nothing in it has
explanatory power concerning why a clearly singular subject takes a
plural verb. How can anything with an indefinite article applied be a
plural thing?
annily
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:49:44 -0500, Stan Brown wrote:
>
> Re--
>
> A few people are amused, but the larger number IS disgusted. -
> A few people are amused, but the larger number ARE disgusted.
>
>> I think "the" better than "a". Only two numbers are involved, the
>> number of amused persons and the number of disgusted persons. The number
>> of disgusted persons is unique and therefore merits the definite
>> article.
>
> No. It is the statement "the larger number" that tells us that
> "disgusted" is the status of the largest number of persons falling into
> any category, not vice-versa. The hypothesis someone else advanced of 5%
> amused, 85% indifferent and 10% disgusted cannot be correct, else it
> would be impossible for "the larger number" to be an apt description of
> those who are disgusted--"there, "*a* larger number" would be needed.
>
> Technically, it ought to be "the largest number",
>
>
I'm not so sure about that anyway. Using "the larger number", rather
than "a larger number" suggests that there are only two categories.
Hence, "larger" makes more sense than "largest", since I was always
taught to use the comparative if there are only two entities.
Fred
"Eric Walker" <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
news:hj0s0s$62f$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:37:31 +0100, Donna Richoux wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Usually numbers and numerical phrases -- quantifiers -- are describing
>> amounts of something else. When they count something discrete like
>> people or tickets, they need a plural verb.
>>
>> A dozen were returned.
>> A great many are still there.
>> A third disapprove.
>> A large number are disgusted.
>
> That's a nice set of examples of common usage, but nothing in it has
> explanatory power concerning why a clearly singular subject takes a
> plural verb. How can anything with an indefinite article applied be a
> plural thing?
>
>
James Hogg
A few exceptions, a good fifty thousand, an estimated three million.
--
James
Donna Richoux
> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:37:31 +0100, Donna Richoux wrote:
>
> > Usually numbers and numerical phrases -- quantifiers -- are describing
> > amounts of something else. When they count something discrete like
> > people or tickets, they need a plural verb.
> >
> > A dozen were returned.
> > A great many are still there.
> > A third disapprove.
> > A large number are disgusted.
>
> That's a nice set of examples of common usage, but nothing in it has
> explanatory power concerning why a clearly singular subject takes a
> plural verb. How can anything with an indefinite article applied be a
> plural thing?
I don't what sort of explanation *you* hope for, but I suspect what I
said may satisfy the original poster. I'll try a bit more, and beyond
this you'll have to consult experts who have written about this.
Quantifiers have a different logic and grammar than other words. They
may look something like "clearly singular subjects" and the rest, but
they aren't. Their role is to give the quantity of another noun, which
may be understood instead of stated.
A box of scarves is on the shelf. (Box = singular subject)
A lot of scarves are on the shelf. (A lot of = quantifying phrase
describing amount of scarves. It only rarely means the singular "lot" of
commercial transaction: "A lot of scarves is ready to be shipped.")
A couple is standing on the dance floor. (A couple = treated as a
collective noun, i.e. singular. A group is, a committee is, a team is --
in US English)
Where are all the spoons?
Oh, a couple are in the dishrack, and a couple are on the counter.
(A couple = quantifying phrase meaning two or a few)
For the purposes of complete explanation, it doesn't really help to say
that "a couple" stands for "a couple of spoons" because that just moves
us to another form of the same question, "Well, why should 'a couple of
spoons' take a plural verb, either?" The answer would have to be
"because it represents more than one spoon," I suppose.
--
Best - Donna Richoux
Eric Walker
[...]
> I'm not so sure about that anyway. Using "the larger number", rather
> than "a larger number" suggests that there are only two categories.
> Hence, "larger" makes more sense than "largest", since I was always
> taught to use the comparative if there are only two entities.
Possibly I didn't explain myself well. What I said was:
The hypothesis someone else advanced of 5% amused, 85% indifferent and
10% disgusted cannot be correct . . . .
It cannot be correct because "the larger number" was used, which--as you
say--implies only two divisions being compared ("the larger number" and,
by implication, "the smaller number"). Had it read "a larger number", it
might refer to one of several categories each of which is larger than the
smallest.
Eric Walker
Words like "couple" and "pair" are themselves singular because they are
describing a unitary concept: a pair or a couple is a definite set of
two, not something that may have any number of individual members.
Likewise, many numerical quantities are treated as mass nouns, and hence
singular, because they are thought of as unitary: "five gallons of milk"
is not a set containing five individual gallon amounts, but rather a
single bucketful of milk.
But is is dubious, I reckon, to consider that "a number" is a unitary,
mass quantity comparable to "five gallons".
Moreover, the very fact that this sort of discussion can be had suggests
that the form is a poor choice. For a usage to be felicitous, its being
correct is a necessary but hardly a sufficient condition: it must be
correct, but it must also flow smoothly, without conscious notice on the
part of the reader or listener. When a usage prompts a flash of
questioning, however brief, it has interrupted the flow of concepts, and
thus in some part failed of its mission.
Perhaps at some day in the middle future, "a number of" will have evolved
to the status of "a lot of", but to my reckoning it has not yet quite
reached that stage, and, if nothing better rises in one's mind,
"numerous" (or even simple "many") will suffice as a much superior
alternative.
James Hogg
I was merely providing some more answers to your question "How can
anything with an indefinite article applied be a plural thing?" "A great
many examples are cited" is clearly plural yet has an indefinite article.
--
James
Peter Moylan
singular must take a singular verb. That's what I would call the
syntax-dominated approach. If we look at modern usage, though, syntax
has been thrown out the door and the decision is dominated by semantics:
"an estimated three million" might be grammatically singular, but in
terms of meaning it refers to a plural entity, so we treat it as plural.
This, I submit, is part of the recognition that English is not Latin.
We've given lip service to that truism for a long time, but there are
still some people who use the syntax of a sentence, as distinct from its
semantics, to make the singular/plural decision.
James Hogg
There's a pondial difference here, isn't there? American English has a
greater tendency to use the singular in cases where it sounds just plain
wrong in Britain or Australia.
--
James
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
There are some cases in Britain where it is necessary to compromise. In
the TV competition Strictly Come Dancing (known elsewhere as Dancing
with the Stars) at the end of each week's show the names of the couples
who have been voted through to the next round are announced. There are
two announcers who take it in turns thusly:
....
The next couple to go through to next week "is" A & B.
The next couple to go through to next week "are" C & D.
The next couple to go through to next week "is" E & F.
The next couple to go through to next week "are" G & H.
....
IIRC "is" is used by Bruce Forsyth (age 81) and "are" by Tess Daly (age
38).
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
CDB
whiff about it.
>
I agree, I think, about the parsing. I was merely pointing out that
the meaning of the words often indicates, as it did in those examples,
what the parsing must be.
James Hogg
Did anyone ever ask a legion to dance?
--
James
Wood Avens
wrote:
>CDB wrote:
A legion of lobsters, perhap?
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:15:42 +0100, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>CDB wrote:
>>> Eric Walker wrote:
>.
>>>>
>>>> And so it goes, while poor little wallflower "numerous" waits to be
>>>> asked to dance.
>>>>
>>> It may have changed its name from "legion", but there is still that
>>> whiff about it.
>>
>>Did anyone ever ask a legion to dance?
>
>A legion of lobsters, perhap?
OK fellow lobsters. Let's form four lines and dance down these shallow
trenches. We can call the dance a quadrille.
LFS
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:15:42 +0100, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> CDB wrote:
>>> Eric Walker wrote:
> .
>>>> And so it goes, while poor little wallflower "numerous" waits to be
>>>> asked to dance.
>>>>
>>> It may have changed its name from "legion", but there is still that
>>> whiff about it.
>> Did anyone ever ask a legion to dance?
>
> A legion of lobsters, perhap?
>
Great, now I have Stuck Doggerel Syndrome. I suppose it is doggerel? The
OED definition seems to emphasise the characteristic of irregular rhythm.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Peter Morris
Actually, for the record, I think the speculation is more or less correct.
There are some people who are amused, some who are disgusted, but
probably most people take no notice at all.
Peter Morris
"James Hogg" <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote in message
news:hj1tv1$p57$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Did anyone ever ask a legion to dance?
Yes, and they were sent three and fourpence.
Fred
"James Hogg" <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote in message
Correct, or in Australian - krect.
Robin Bignall
Who's this we? Do you have a caucus?
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
annily
Fair enough. We are in agreement.
annily
That would almost certainly be true in practice, in which case the
original statement was not correctly worded.
Stan Brown
<ma...@peterduncanson.net>:
> There are some cases in Britain where it is necessary to compromise. In
> the TV competition Strictly Come Dancing (known elsewhere as Dancing
> with the Stars)
Could someone interpret that for me in non-idiomatic English? To my
ears the only meaning is, frankly, not suitable for a family
newsgroup like this one. (I suppose that puts me in the position of
the old lady who complained to the police that the boys walking past
her house were whistling dirty songs.)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Stan Brown
<Jas....@gOUTmail.com>:
"Bella figlia dell'amore ..."
HVS
> Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE)
><ma...@peterduncanson.net>:
>> There are some cases in Britain where it is necessary to
>> compromise. In the TV competition Strictly Come Dancing (known
>> elsewhere as Dancing with the Stars)
>
> Could someone interpret that for me in non-idiomatic English?
> To my ears the only meaning is, frankly, not suitable for a
> family newsgroup like this one.
Dancing with the Stars (US) and Strictly Come Dancing (UK) are
television ballroom-dancing competitions where celebrities are paired
with professional ballroom dancers.
"Strictly Come Dancing" is a portmanteau name, combining the title of
a long-standing British ballroom-dancing television show ("Come
Dancing") and the title of a popular movie ("Strictly Ballroom").
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE)
><ma...@peterduncanson.net>:
>> There are some cases in Britain where it is necessary to compromise. In
>> the TV competition Strictly Come Dancing (known elsewhere as Dancing
>> with the Stars)
>
>Could someone interpret that for me in non-idiomatic English? To my
>ears the only meaning is, frankly, not suitable for a family
>newsgroup like this one. (I suppose that puts me in the position of
>the old lady who complained to the police that the boys walking past
>her house were whistling dirty songs.)
I'm not sure what you have in mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strictly_Come_Dancing
Strictly Come Dancing is a British television show, featuring
celebrities with professional dance partners competing in Ballroom
and Latin dances.
It is family entertainment. It attracts viewers of all ages and is aired
early evening on Saturdays.
James Hogg
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:21:29 -0500, Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net>:
>>> There are some cases in Britain where it is necessary to compromise. In
>>> the TV competition Strictly Come Dancing (known elsewhere as Dancing
>>> with the Stars)
>> Could someone interpret that for me in non-idiomatic English? To my
>> ears the only meaning is, frankly, not suitable for a family
>> newsgroup like this one. (I suppose that puts me in the position of
>> the old lady who complained to the police that the boys walking past
>> her house were whistling dirty songs.)
>
> I'm not sure what you have in mind.
I suspect he's thinking of the riddle:
What's white and sticky and goes glides across the floor?
--
James
LFS
I'm rather glad that you saved me from the responsibility of posting
that and lowering the tone. (We'll all ignore the superfluous word.)
James Hogg
It's better to let me whistle the dirty songs. You stick to your unicycling.
--
James
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE)
><ma...@peterduncanson.net>:
>> There are some cases in Britain where it is necessary to compromise. In
>> the TV competition Strictly Come Dancing (known elsewhere as Dancing
>> with the Stars)
>
>Could someone interpret that for me in non-idiomatic English? To my
>ears the only meaning is, frankly, not suitable for a family
>newsgroup like this one. (I suppose that puts me in the position of
>the old lady who complained to the police that the boys walking past
>her house were whistling dirty songs.)
You think it means dirty dancing, like that film the fellow who died recently
was in?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mike Lyle
Not sure. Can you have ta many for a caucus?
--
Mike.
Frank ess
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:21:29 -0500, Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:29:23 +0000 from Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net>:
>>> There are some cases in Britain where it is necessary to
>>> compromise. In the TV competition Strictly Come Dancing (known
>>> elsewhere as Dancing with the Stars)
>>
>> Could someone interpret that for me in non-idiomatic English? To
>> my ears the only meaning is, frankly, not suitable for a family
>> newsgroup like this one. (I suppose that puts me in the position
>> of the old lady who complained to the police that the boys walking
>> past her house were whistling dirty songs.)
>
> You think it means dirty dancing, like that film the fellow who
> died recently was in?
I think it means, "Bring your dancing skills; don't expect to win on
personality or beauty of form".
--
Frank ess
Irwell
Conjures up images and sounds of Victor Sylvester
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Indeed.
Robin Bignall
I'd ask my hedgehog, but he just crawled away.
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Did anyone ever ask a legion to dance?
In my recollection, it was "the eighth army" rather than "a legion."
Wasn't usually dancing, either.
--Jeff
--
Is man one of God's blunders or
is God one of man's?
--Friedrich Nietzsche