Just who the hell writes DVD copy anyway?!?!
ehre
hand in hand with its global primacy.
Just who the hell writes copy for DVD covers and content material????
They can't seem to spell and don't seem to know their grammar. Typos
are one thing -- and doesn't anyone proofread anymore, even with MS
Word?? -- but poor grammar is really unforgivable. The most common
offense it confusing "its" with "it's," using the genitive when the
plural nominative is clearly what's intended (also "Russian's" for
"Russians.")
Check out the copy or disc content on/in "The World at War," "Walking
with Dinosaurs/Prehistoric Beasts," "Spartacus" (or was that
"Gladiator"?)....
I can find more -- but those come to mind right now....
Yeah, I feel like Professor Higgins!
CyberCypher
news:666370a5.02032...@posting.google.com:
You know that the world is going to hell when people involved with the
visual and aural industries cannot write, spell, or punctuate. I would
suggest that you do what I do and boycott the villainous knaves and
their tawdry commercial enterprises. OTOH, they know damned well that
the fools who buy their wares cannot read or write and unlikely to
notice anything that might strike some of us as errors, an we deigned
to glance at them.
> Yeah, I feel like Professor Higgins!
Yes, he lived in a world of his own as well.
--
Franke
david56
My experience is limited to the fact that Engineering and IT graduates
cannot write, spell or punctuate. So I suppose they don't notice if the
DVD covers are badly written.
--
David
just going through the motions
The address is valid today, but I will change it at to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Dlehmicke
>the fools who buy their wares cannot read or write and unlikely to
There's something especially amusing about an ungrammatical grammar-rant.
Spehro Pefhany
> My experience is limited to the fact that Engineering and IT graduates
> cannot write, spell or punctuate. So I suppose they don't notice if the
> DVD covers are badly written.
Here is some copy from a box used to package a product I recently received
from Australia:
".. it's said to be very lucky; all those in possession of one is assured
of a long life, happiness and healthy children."
Bonus points to anyone who can guess what the product is.
Best regards,
--
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
9-11 United we Stand
Le Data
We had a new product coming out and marketing had "proudly" put some shots
of the box on display in the office.
English is not my native language, but I could spot a mistake every other
line, and not just spelling or grammar, plain typos. They wouldn't even
use a spell checker on the packaging !
I couldn't stand that someone would put such a bad job on display, it was
really offending to me.
So I took a pen and marked the mistakes.
The same thing is happening in other countries and other languages.
Sometimes I think that nowadays, people whose job is to sell are those who
are no good at anything else.
"ehre" <eh...@xtcnewyork.com> wrote in message
news:666370a5.02032...@posting.google.com...
david56
>
> In alt.usage.english david56 <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > My experience is limited to the fact that Engineering and IT graduates
> > cannot write, spell or punctuate. So I suppose they don't notice if the
> > DVD covers are badly written.
>
> Here is some copy from a box used to package a product I recently received
> from Australia:
>
> ".. it's said to be very lucky; all those in possession of one is assured
> of a long life, happiness and healthy children."
>
> Bonus points to anyone who can guess what the product is.
Contraceptives?
Pat Durkin
"Le Data" <le_dat...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ca348ba$0$15585$626a...@news.free.fr...
> I used to work in the US for a software company that no longer exists.
> We had a new product coming out and marketing had "proudly" put some shots
> of the box on display in the office.
> English is not my native language, but I could spot a mistake every other
> line, and not just spelling or grammar, plain typos. They wouldn't even
> use a spell checker on the packaging !
> I couldn't stand that someone would put such a bad job on display, it was
> really offending to me.
> So I took a pen and marked the mistakes.
>
> The same thing is happening in other countries and other languages.
> Sometimes I think that nowadays, people whose job is to sell are those who
> are no good at anything else.
Sound and picture are the selling tools. Words, if spoken in a narrative,
might count for something, but loud, intrusive music with some
unintelligible vocalization, means more attention is paid to the production
and the product. Action, trick photos and camera angles, a lot of sex, or
maybe some humor, or both. and now and then some understandable lyrics help
a lot.
Probably the biggest seller is not name recognition of the face on TV, but
an understanding of "Who else owns the product?". Keeping up with the
Joneses, Leading Edge, the In Group, Cutting Edge, are pretty good code
words to explain the need some of us have to own the latest stuff.
Dave Friend
I take offense, sir! Your experience is indeed limited. :)
Rather, we geeks consider grammar and puctuation a waste of brain activity.
Getting the point across is of paramount importance.
--
Dave Friend
dave DOT friend AT charter DOT net
Robert Lieblich
>
> Let me lament the decline of English -- its bastardization seems to go
> hand in hand with its global primacy.
>
> Just who the hell writes copy for DVD covers and content material????
>
> They can't seem to spell and don't seem to know their grammar. Typos
> are one thing -- and doesn't anyone proofread anymore, even with MS
> Word?? -- but poor grammar is really unforgivable. The most common
> offense it confusing "its" with "it's," using the genitive when the
> plural nominative is clearly what's intended (also "Russian's" for
> "Russians.")
The genitive of "it" is "its." The plural nominative of "it" is
"they." "It's" is a contraction of a singular nominative and the
copulative verb form "is."
The superfluous apostrophe (often called the greengrocer's
apostrophe) is a sufficiently well-known phenomenon that on the
usage groups we confine ourselves mostly to offering particularly
egregious samples. Comment is by now superfluous.
--
Bob Lieblich
From AUE and AEU
Pete T
I regularly notice such mistakes in magazines that I read. I don't recall
such bad grammar being commonplace in my childhood (I'm only 24). I blame
it on computers and the associated laziness that comes from using them!
One thing that really scares me is that more and more computers are being
used in schools. What is to become of handwriting skills? I feel extremely
lucky in that computers were only just being introduced to my secondary
school during my time there.
Best regards,
Pete
david56
>
> >> You know that the world is going to hell when people involved with the
> >> visual and aural industries cannot write, spell, or punctuate. I would
> >> suggest that you do what I do and boycott the villainous knaves and
> >> their tawdry commercial enterprises. OTOH, they know damned well that
> >> the fools who buy their wares cannot read or write and unlikely to
> >> notice anything that might strike some of us as errors, an we deigned
> >> to glance at them.
> >
> >My experience is limited to the fact that Engineering and IT graduates
> >cannot write, spell or punctuate. So I suppose they don't notice if the
> >DVD covers are badly written.
>
> I take offense, sir! Your experience is indeed limited. :)
>
> Rather, we geeks consider grammar and puctuation a waste of brain activity.
> Getting the point across is of paramount importance.
You have not yet travelled far enough into the land of the ubernerd.
Simple geekiness is not enough. Real, deep, serious propellor-heads
write perfect English - we just see it as another programming language.
It won't compile if we miss a semicolon.
Robert Lieblich
Try searching Google Groups for Skitt's Law.
In the actual case, I suspect it was a typo.
Spehro Pefhany
> Contraceptives?
In a sense. You're definitely in the right neck of the woods.
Jacques E. Bouchard
news:3CA34F96...@Verizon.net:
> The genitive of "it" is "its." The plural nominative of "it" is
> "they." "It's" is a contraction of a singular nominative and the
> copulative verb form "is."
Tee-hee! You said "copulative"...
jaybee
Dave Friend
Well, now you're talking Engineers vs. Programmers. Not mutually exlusive,
nor are they identical.
Gosh, I guess sweeping generalizations are that accurate after all. :)
david56
Indeed, to prove your assertion, I am both a programmer and an
Engineer. Scary, eh?
Mason Barge
>from Australia:
>
>".. it's said to be very lucky; all those in possession of one is assured
>of a long life, happiness and healthy children."
Good one! (Unless Australia is not a valid clue, in which case, shame on you.)
I guess a kangaroo scrotum.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln
Spehro Pefhany
>>Here is some copy from a box used to package a product I recently received
>>from Australia:
>>
>>".. it's said to be very lucky; all those in possession of one is assured
>>of a long life, happiness and healthy children."
>
> Good one! (Unless Australia is not a valid clue, in which case, shame on you.)
>
> I guess a kangaroo scrotum.
Bingo! I guess they don't call the original contents "Outback Oysters",
though.
Mason Barge
>Engineer. Scary, eh?
As long as you aren't Canadian, too. THAT would be scary.
Mason Barge
>"they." "It's" is a contraction of a singular nominative and the
>copulative verb form "is."
I actually think this distinction is headed for the trash heap. And
personally, I see no reason not to scrap it.
That is, the "its" form.
I am betting (without knowing) that there is a good historical reason for
"its", considering the way that personal pronouns have retained such special
form in modern English. But it causes (or do I mean, "its causes"?) confusion
without any good reason.
Spehro Pefhany
>>Engineer. Scary, eh?
>
> As long as you aren't Canadian, too. THAT would be scary.
Boo!
Richard ©ç® ²ºº²
"Dave Friend" <no...@davegate.davesbox.net> wrote in message news:ua6jl8n...@corp.supernews.com...
:
: Rather, we geeks consider grammar and puctuation a waste of brain activity.
: Getting the point across is of paramount importance.
=================================
Proper grammar, spelling and punctuation are necessary ingredients of communicating a point.
Without them, obfuscation and lack of clarity abound and the point is vague.
Gary Vellenzer
mason...@aol.comnospam says...
> >The genitive of "it" is "its." The plural nominative of "it" is
> >"they." "It's" is a contraction of a singular nominative and the
> >copulative verb form "is."
>
> I actually think this distinction is headed for the trash heap. And
> personally, I see no reason not to scrap it.
>
> That is, the "its" form.
>
> I am betting (without knowing) that there is a good historical reason for
> "its", considering the way that personal pronouns have retained such special
> form in modern English. But it causes (or do I mean, "its causes"?) confusion
> without any good reason.
>
"his", just like the possessive of "he". The analogical form "its" arose
in the 16th century, and was sometimes spelled "it's" right from the
beginning.
So there is really no justification, other than usage, for the
schoolmarmish distinction between "its" and "it's". And usage can change
over time.
Gary
nazardo
> > They can't seem to spell and don't seem to know their grammar.
> > Typos are one thing -- and doesn't anyone proofread anymore, even
> > with MS Word?? -- but poor grammar is really unforgivable.
This is something that pisses me off too. Not so much grammar as I
don't mind "reading how people talk"... but spelling errors? Stuff
that pops up on even the poorest of spellcheckers? Man that's bad!
I don't care about spelling and grammar in a newsgroup (I don't waste
my time checking these things when I post) or a first or second draft
I've written (more interested in getting the words down on the paper!)
But when you are talking about a finished product you simply have to
eliminate these errors. My biggest problem with amateur scripts is
spellng errors in the first 10 pages. I just stop reading. It says to
me that the writer isn't taking their script seriously -- so why
should I? If I am making a sacrifice of my time or money (and time is
money) to read something I expect it to be a finished product.
I read full page ads in magazines and newspapers with glaring spelling
errors. Articles -- even headlines -- with blatant errors. I mean
usually there's a lot of money put behind something that goes to print
(especially ads!) The least they can do is hire someone capable of
proofing the text. I've lost count of how many times I've started
reading an article or an ad and found a spelling error in the first
paragraph! Latest example: I just bought this great screenwriting book
which was a fabulous read, but on the front cover there are two
mispellings! They were in the quotes from the so-called professionals
exclaiming how great the book was and in the list of screenwriters who
contributed. Apparently not so great that they missed spelling errors
on the frickin' cover!
THE COVER!?!?!
I'll forgive an error or two throughout an entire book but if it's on
the cover or in the first paragraph of a chapter then they have just
given me the green light to stop reading. Thankfully in the case of
DVDs all I'm interested in is owning a copy of a film I enjoyed for
studying (which hopefully includes a director/writer commentary for
further insight!)
Dave Friend
Grammar, spelling and punctuation errors don't always result in a lack of
clarity. Other than pathological examples from high school text books it's
pretty rare that I'm distracted by a misplaced apostrophe or a spelling error.
I'm far more annoyed when someone writes awkward sentences just to avoid
ending a sentence with a preposition.
But that's just me.
Skitt
"david56" <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> My experience is limited to the fact that Engineering and IT graduates
> cannot write, spell or punctuate. So I suppose they don't notice if the
> DVD covers are badly written.
I beg your pardon!
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Skitt
"david56" <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Dave Friend wrote:
> > david56 <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >Dave Friend wrote:
> > >> >My experience is limited to the fact that Engineering and IT
graduates
> > >> >cannot write, spell or punctuate. So I suppose they don't notice if
the
> > >> >DVD covers are badly written.
> > >>
> > >> I take offense, sir! Your experience is indeed limited. :)
> > >>
> > >> Rather, we geeks consider grammar and puctuation a waste of brain
activity.
> > >> Getting the point across is of paramount importance.
> > >
> > >You have not yet travelled far enough into the land of the ubernerd.
> > >Simple geekiness is not enough. Real, deep, serious propellor-heads
> > >write perfect English - we just see it as another programming language.
> > >It won't compile if we miss a semicolon.
> >
> > Well, now you're talking Engineers vs. Programmers. Not mutually
exlusive,
> > nor are they identical.
> >
> > Gosh, I guess sweeping generalizations are that accurate after all. :)
>
> Indeed, to prove your assertion, I am both a programmer and an
> Engineer. Scary, eh?
Same here, with some military law experience thrown in.
MC
steven...@yahoo.com (nazardo) wrote:
> THE COVER!?!?!
>
> I'll forgive an error or two throughout an entire book but if it's on
> the cover or in the first paragraph of a chapter then they have just
> given me the green light to stop reading. Thankfully in the case of
> DVDs all I'm interested in is owning a copy of a film I enjoyed for
> studying (which hopefully includes a director/writer commentary for
> further insight!)
I was in a specialist bookshop one day -- 90% of its stock has to do
with theatre and film. I picked up a new book (forget what it was) and
noticed that it had a "Forward" not a "Foreword."
I showed it to the owner, expecting him to shrug, or laugh, but he was
incensed. He gathered up all the copies of the book and said he wouldn't
stock any book with that kind of egregious error. Next time I went in he
reminded me of it, & told me he'd returned all copies to the publisher.
Buckaroo
"Dave Friend" <no...@davegate.davesbox.net> wrote in message
> >Without them, obfuscation and lack of clarity abound and the point is
vague.
I really got a kick out of this sentence. Could any sentance be more
pedantically redundant? (obfuscation, lack of clarity, vague...was this
intended as a joke?)
Buckaroo
wrong]
"Buckaroo" <Cowb...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:a800no$k0$1...@persian.noc.ucla.edu...
Michael Rogers
> Without them, obfuscation and lack of clarity abound and the point is vague.
Then, I suspect, bad grammar is not a mistake but a marketing tool to
sell some films that clarity would not.
Mike (who suspects there are at least a couple grammatical mistakes in
the above sentence)
Dave Friend
Careful with your references... I didn't write that.
Jane E. Nicholson
no...@davegate.davesbox.net (Dave Friend) wrote:
Whereas I do find grammatical errors extremely distracting. It isn't
that hard to get it right.
And the current school of thought says that it's perfectly acceptable
to have a preposition at the end of a sentence. I agree that
sentences awkwardly reworded to avoid this are annoying.
--
Jane Nicholson
Wellington, New Zealand
www.tv2dvd.net (but don't bother, it's been sucked down the Cyber-Titan hole.)
Mason Barge
>the above sentence)
Well, your use of "above" as an adjective sent me to Webster, who assured me
that it is standard, even though some people object to it.
Still, some of us have higher standards than others :(
<----- sulking about not getting to flog a pet peeve
Mark Wallace
"ehre" <eh...@xtcnewyork.com> wrote in message
news:666370a5.02032...@posting.google.com...
> Let me lament the decline of English -- its bastardization seems
to go
> hand in hand with its global primacy.
'Global primacy'? How can primacy be global, in the context you
offer?
> Just who the hell writes copy for DVD covers and content
material????
'Who *the* hell', rather than 'who *in* Hell' (note the case of the
'H')?
> They can't seem to spell and don't seem to know their grammar.
"They can't seem to spell"? Sheer nonsense, and certainly not good,
communicative English.
"It seem they can't spell" would be acceptable -- but are you happy
with the repetition of 'seem'?
> Typos
> are one thing -- and doesn't anyone proofread anymore, even with
MS
> Word?? -- but poor grammar is really unforgivable.
The intent of that sentence might be clear enough, but the way
you've thrown in an ill-fitting parenthetic statement, which opens
with a coordinating conjunction, is diabolical.
> The most common
> offense it confusing "its" with "it's," using the genitive when
the
> plural nominative is clearly what's intended (also "Russian's" for
> "Russians.")
That parenthetic statement is so badly misplaced that it's
frightening.
> Check out the copy or disc content on/in "The World at War,"
"Walking
> with Dinosaurs/Prehistoric Beasts," "Spartacus" (or was that
> "Gladiator"?)....
Where do commas go, within lists?
> I can find more -- but those come to mind right now....
'Can'? Not 'could'?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
You ain't him.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Wallace
"Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3CA34F96...@Verizon.net...
> ehre wrote:
> >
> > Let me lament the decline of English -- its bastardization seems
to go
> > hand in hand with its global primacy.
> >
material????
> >
> > are one thing -- and doesn't anyone proofread anymore, even with
MS
common
> > offense it confusing "its" with "it's," using the genitive when
the
> > plural nominative is clearly what's intended (also "Russian's"
for
> > "Russians.")
>
> "they." "It's" is a contraction of a singular nominative and the
> copulative verb form "is."
Good grief, I found so much else wrong that that slipped right past
me unnoticed.
I think I can honestly say that I've never seen anyone use "it's" in
place of the plural nominative.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Doctor Charles.
You can trust him.
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/doc01.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Wallace
"MC" <cope...@ZAPca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:copeSPAM-AF9277...@news.easynews.com...
> In article <ca647f45.02032...@posting.google.com>,
> steven...@yahoo.com (nazardo) wrote:
>
> > THE COVER!?!?!
> >
> > I'll forgive an error or two throughout an entire book but if
it's on
> > the cover or in the first paragraph of a chapter then they have
just
> > given me the green light to stop reading. Thankfully in the case
of
> > DVDs all I'm interested in is owning a copy of a film I enjoyed
for
> > studying (which hopefully includes a director/writer commentary
for
> > further insight!)
>
> I was in a specialist bookshop one day -- 90% of its stock has to
do
> with theatre and film. I picked up a new book (forget what it was)
and
> noticed that it had a "Forward" not a "Foreword."
I hate to spoil your disgruntlement, but that's perfectly OK. Books
can indeed have 'forward's -- which are surprisingly similar to
'foreword's, but spelt differently.
> I showed it to the owner, expecting him to shrug, or laugh, but he
was
> incensed. He gathered up all the copies of the book and said he
wouldn't
> stock any book with that kind of egregious error. Next time I went
in he
> reminded me of it, & told me he'd returned all copies to the
publisher.
He should have looked into a decent English usage book, first.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
Gene Harris
>I was in a specialist bookshop one day -- 90% of its stock has to do
>with theatre and film. I picked up a new book (forget what it was) and
>noticed that it had a "Forward" not a "Foreword."
>
>I showed it to the owner, expecting him to shrug, or laugh, but he was
>incensed. He gathered up all the copies of the book and said he wouldn't
>stock any book with that kind of egregious error. Next time I went in he
>reminded me of it, & told me he'd returned all copies to the publisher.
Bravo to him!
Gene
MC
"Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
> He should have looked into a decent English usage book, first.
Indeed, "forward" can be a noun.
No football team is complete without one.
But I'd like to see a reference for your contention...
Richard Fontana
> So there is really no justification, other than usage, for the
> schoolmarmish distinction between "its" and "it's". And usage can change
> over time.
I can think of one justification for having them be *different*: it
separates what are functionally different (though phonetically
identical) words, thus reducing the possibility of ambiguity. "It's"
will, in standard written English, always mean "it is"/"it has"; "its"
will always be the possessive.
I don't know why you call the distinction "schoolmarmish", unless you
want to say that any feature of the standard written language, such as
any aspect of standard English orthography, is "schoolmarmish".
Arcadian Rises
<fra...@seed.net.tw> writes:
>OTOH, they know damned well that
>the fools who buy their wares cannot read or write and unlikely to
>notice anything that might strike some of us as errors, an we deigned
>to glance at them.
>
Sometimes I suspect that the poor writing is just a publicity gimmick, for mass
appeal purposes, like the politicians, Ivy League graduates, who try to pass as
regular Joes, or no-nonsense men who ain't bothered by such trifle things as
gramma or syntactix.
Jacques E. Bouchard
51325.news.dfncis.de:
> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I love the smell of a pissing contest in the morning. Seizing a
thread to showcase one's ego, only to basically make the same exact point
as the previous person.
Never you mind.
jaybee
Tony Cooper
While I find no grammar, spelling or punctuation errors in
your second sentence, my mind is diverted from your point
because I am mentally rewriting it to sound less pretentious
and less redundant. I am also in argument to your
conclusion. *With* the proper spelling, grammar, and
punctuation, many statements remain vague and pointless.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
Richard ©ç® ²ºº²
"Dave Friend" <no...@davegate.davesbox.net> wrote in message news:ua739k8...@corp.supernews.com...
: On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:08:09 -0800, Buckaroo <Cowb...@prodigy.net> wrote:
: >
: >"Dave Friend" <no...@davegate.davesbox.net> wrote in message
: >
: >> >Without them, obfuscation and lack of clarity abound and the point is
: >vague.
: >
: >I really got a kick out of this sentence. Could any sentance be more
: >pedantically redundant? (obfuscation, lack of clarity, vague...was this
: >intended as a joke?)
:
: Careful with your references... I didn't write that.
=============
I DID write it and yes.........he got it............
I was intending to be repetitively redundant and duplicitous!
Mark Wallace
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <jebou...@altern.org> wrote in message
news:Xns91DFC06C74D9Dj...@216.187.106.195...
Skitt RuLeZ, Ok?
--
Begin PCP Signature...
ecallaW kraM
...End PCP Signature
_____________________________________________
What does a slightly insane Englishman think of the Dutch?
To find out, visit the Dutch & Such website:
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/dutch/dutch-index.htm
_____________________________________________
Robert Bannister
> Rather, we geeks consider grammar and puctuation a waste of brain activity.
> Getting the point across is of paramount importance.
So who writes those incomprehensible computer manuals and online 'help' things?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> One thing that really scares me is that more and more computers are being
> used in schools. What is to become of handwriting skills? I feel extremely
> lucky in that computers were only just being introduced to my secondary
> school during my time there.
Do handwriting skills really matter any more? As a former schoolteacher, I
virtually gave up handwriting many years ago - I found it was simpler in the
long run to print on the whiteboard and all my worksheets and information
have been produced on a computer since the 80's. About the only 'running
writing' I do now is my signature.
I still enjoy calligraphy, but that has only a tenuous connection to
handwriting. I'd put handwriting in a basket with painting hieroglyphics.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
However, even I have to stop and think about "one's".
--
Rob Bannister
Brevity
>I hate to spoil your disgruntlement, but that's perfectly OK. Books
>can indeed have 'forward's -- which are surprisingly similar to
>'foreword's, but spelt differently.
>
>
>He should have looked into a decent English usage book, first.
>
>--
>
>Mark Wallace
Mark,
I looked in what I concider a "decent English usage book" (The
American Heritage Dictionary" which includes articles on disputes and
disagreements on usage, and even gives the percentage of its experts
who voted each way in a dispute. For "forward" it only gives the
following definitions, which do NOT include a synonym for "foreword."
for·ward (fôr“w…rd) adj. 1.a. At, near, or belonging to the front or
forepart; fore: the forward section of the aircraft. b. Located ahead
or in advance: kept her eye on the forward horizon. 2.a. Going,
tending, or moving toward a position in front: a forward plunge down a
flight of stairs. b. Sports. Advancing toward an opponent's goal. c.
Moving in a prescribed direction or order for normal use: forward
rolling of the cassette tape. 3.a. Ardently inclined; eager. b.
Lacking restraint or modesty; presumptuous or bold: a forward child.
4.a. Being ahead of current economic, political, or technological
trends; progressive: a forward concept. b. Deviating radically from
convention or tradition; extreme. 5. Exceptionally advanced;
precocious. 6. Of, relating to, or done in preparation for the future:
bidding on forward contracts for corn. --for·ward adv. 1. Toward or
tending to the front; frontward: step forward. 2. Into consideration:
put forward a new proposal. 3. In or toward the future: looking
forward to seeing you. 4.a. In the prescribed direction or sequence
for normal use: rolled the tape forward. b. In an advanced position or
a configuration registering a future time: set the clock forward. c.
At or to a different time; earlier or later: moved the appointment
forward, from Friday to Thursday. --for·ward n. Abbr. fwd Sports. 1. A
player in certain games, such as basketball, soccer, or hockey, who is
part of the forward line of the offense. 2. The position played by
such a person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, you may think the first definition indeed does include the
concept of the "foreword" of a book, but I do not. The definition for
"foreword" includes only the refernece to books, and no others.
Bob Stone
Associate Editor
Hollywood Scriptwriter
http://www.hollywoodscriptwriter.com
(remove the x to reply via email)
Michael J Hardy
> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
"Let him." Not: "Let he." "Him" is for objects;
"he" is for subjects. -- Mike Hardy
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> I DID write it and yes.........he got it............
> I was intending to be repetitively redundant and duplicitous!
Superfluous "!" aside, do you really want to admit that you
intended[1] to be duplicitous?
[1] "Intended" would be much better than "was intending" here.
--
Bob Lieblich
Single-handed
R J Valentine
In alt.usage.english "Richard ©ç® ²ºº²" <post-xxage@spamcop dot net> wrote:
} Proper grammar, spelling and punctuation are necessary ingredients of
} communicating a point. Without them, obfuscation and lack of clarity
} abound and the point is vague.
I was doing so well being tolerant of the Yale/Cambridge non-comma that I
got bogged down in how the lack of the lack of clarity could abound, and I
sort of blurred out until I got to "the point is vague". I was also
wondering why someone would call himself "Richard ??? ????" when
Prof. Fontana is so well respected, but I see now in the PIne COmposer
that it's one of those clever things like that Aarom guy's sig. No, the
other one.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
CyberCypher
news:RKHo8.959$0x1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
[...]
>
> Here is some copy from a box used to package a product I recently
> received from Australia:
>
> ".. it's said to be very lucky; all those in possession of one is
> assured of a long life, happiness and healthy children."
>
> Bonus points to anyone who can guess what the product is.
>
Tiger penis.
--
Franke
CyberCypher
news:3CA3538C...@Verizon.net:
> Dlehmicke wrote:
>>
>> >OTOH, they know damned well that
>> >the fools who buy their wares cannot read or write and unlikely
>> >to notice anything that might strike some of us as errors ...
>>
>> There's something especially amusing about an ungrammatical
>> grammar-rant.
>
> Try searching Google Groups for Skitt's Law.
>
> In the actual case, I suspect it was a typo.
>
Yes, it was a typo. My keyboard doesn't like me and often fails to
include all the letters I type. Today I hooked up a new keyboard, so I
doubt that I'll be missing as many letters and words as I used to.
--
Franke
CyberCypher
B2E243.173...@news.easynews.com:
W3NID
Main Entry:3forward
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
1 : the forepart of a ship
2 a : one of the players in certain games (as soccer, hockey,
basketball, or water polo) who is stationed at or relatively near the
front of his side or team and whose chief duty is to carry on the
offensive play see VOLLEYBALL illustration b : a defensive or
offensive lineman in football compare 1BACK 5a
--
Franke
Charles Riggs
You'll see this happening time and time again here. Someone will
answer a question and four more people will follow with the same
answer. I never could understand this. Some of these posts can be
explained by news server time delays but not, I suspect, the majority.
Charles Riggs
Jeff Cook
> You'll see this happening time and time again here. Someone will
> answer a question and four more people will follow with the same
> answer. I never could understand this. Some of these posts can be
> explained by news server time delays but not, I suspect, the majority.
I find, on newgsroup as well as mailing lists, that it's mainly people
answering posts as they read them instead of reading ALL the current
messages, THEN going back to reply to what hasn't already been answered.
Seems like a simple solution, but whaddya gonna do?
--
Jeff Cook
je...@cookstudios.com
http://www.cookstudios.com
Video, Audio, Print & the Web
Washington DC & London
MC
Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
> You'll see this happening time and time again here. Someone will
> answer a question and four more people will follow with the same
> answer. I never could understand this. Some of these posts can be
> explained by news server time delays but not, I suspect, the majority.
I use a news reader that makes this very possible. All depends on
whether I read the whole thread before replying on the fly.
Replying on the fly often produces this:
I read a message and reply to it.
Then I read the subsequent message in the thread -- and discover that
it's a earlier reply from someone else covering the same ground.
MC
CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
> > Indeed, "forward" can be a noun.
> >
> > No football team is complete without one.
> >
> > But I'd like to see a reference for your contention...
> >
>
> W3NID
>
> Main Entry:3forward
> Function:noun
> Inflected Form:-s
>
> 1 : the forepart of a ship
> 2 a : one of the players in certain games (as soccer, hockey,
> basketball, or water polo) who is stationed at or relatively near the
> front of his side or team and whose chief duty is to carry on the
> offensive play see VOLLEYBALL illustration b : a defensive or
> offensive lineman in football compare 1BACK 5a
Well now, that's a reference to *my* contention. Where is the reference
to "Forward" as a synonym for "Foreword"?
(And why do I think I'm being trolled?)
Red Valerian
>Just who the hell writes copy for DVD covers and content material????
>They can't seem to spell and don't seem to know their grammar.
I'm afraid that I must beg to differ. Because of your post, I just
spent a fruitless twenty minutes reading (for the first time, I might
add) the copy on the back of my DVD collection. I couldn't find a
single grammatical or spelling error anywhere, and I'm an English
teacher, hence spend much of my sad and lonely life looking for SPAG
errors. (SPAG is a British educational acronym for Spelling
Punctuation and Grammar, by the way.)
Far from finding any egregious errors, I instead discovered this
reassuring example of correct usage on the back of "Die Hard Special
Edition":
"High above the city of L.A. a team of terrorists HAS seized a
building, taken hostages and declared war."
It made my heart glad.
RorysMusicCafe2
But isn't the object "he who is without sin" rather than "he"? If a person
referred to as "he who is without sin" is to be used as the object of a verb,
the objective form would still have to be "he who is without sin".
Alan Jones
"RorysMusicCafe2" <rorysmu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020329045230...@mb-mj.aol.com...
No. Mike is right. Remove the relative clause, and you get "Let him cast the
first stone", "him" being the object of "let". The insertion of the relative
clause leaves this structure intact. Within the relative clause, "who" is
the subject of "is" and is therefore (depending on the terminology you use)
in the nominative or subjective case.
This proverbial sentence is modified from St John's Gospel: "He that is
without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". The "he" there is
not part of the main sentence, but a "vocative" external to the structure -
hence it is in the subjective/nominative form. Once within the structure of
the main sentence, the former "he" has to become "him".
Alan Jones
Mark Wallace
"MC" <cope...@ZAPca.inter.net> wrote in message
news:copeSPAM-9C3938...@news.easynews.com...
It also depends on how often you news reader updates. Mine, for
example, is set to update only when I open a group, so that it won't
steal system resources when I don't want it to; so leaving the
reader open in the background for a hour or two, whilst I do
something else, can leave me out of date by numerous postings.
Besides, why pick on me for this?
I'm very rarely guilty of it, and my posting in this thread was
unlike anyone else's.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Doctor Charles.
You can trust him.
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/doc01.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
CyberCypher
news:copeSPAM-D6E643...@news.easynews.com:
> In article <Xns91E0A1BE5...@130.133.1.4>,
> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
>> > Indeed, "forward" can be a noun.
>> >
>> > No football team is complete without one.
>> >
>> > But I'd like to see a reference for your contention...
>> >
>>
>> W3NID
>>
>> Main Entry:3forward
>> Function:noun
>> Inflected Form:-s
>>
>> 1 : the forepart of a ship
>> 2 a : one of the players in certain games (as soccer, hockey,
>> basketball, or water polo) who is stationed at or relatively near
>> the front of his side or team and whose chief duty is to carry on
>> the offensive play see VOLLEYBALL illustration b : a defensive
>> or offensive lineman in football compare 1BACK 5a
>
> Well now, that's a reference to *my* contention.
I know. I just thought I'd post it here in case Mark Wallace was
interested.
> Where is the reference to "Forward" as a synonym for "Foreword"?
There is none that I know of.
> (And why do I think I'm being trolled?)
Depends on who's trolling you. I'm certainly not.
--
Franke
Mark Wallace
No, he's quite right. "Let ~~" is the formal imperative, and
requires an object.
I hadn't noticed the crosspost list. Everyone in AEU is familiar
with Skitt's Law:
"When posting to correct a spelling or grammatical error in
another's posting, one must make a comparable spleling or
grammatical error in their own posting"
Mark Wallace
"Red Valerian" <hg...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:96c8ausn2m2kcq6h5...@4ax.com...
You're happy with the way that's punctuated?
Curious.
Mark Wallace
"Brevity" <xabra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ca3cfea...@news.earthlink.net...
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
>
> >I hate to spoil your disgruntlement, but that's perfectly OK.
Books
> >can indeed have 'forward's -- which are surprisingly similar to
> >'foreword's, but spelt differently.
> >
> >He should have looked into a decent English usage book, first.
>
> American Heritage Dictionary"
Why on Earth should one refer to an American book on matters of
English?
What do Patagonians know about it?
Perhaps you should ask someone who's spent umpty years writing and
working with publishers.
Oh. That would be me.
> Bob Stone
> Associate Editor
> Hollywood Scriptwriter
> http://www.hollywoodscriptwriter.com
> (remove the x to reply via email)
Oh dear. I see you're one of 'them'.
Does Writer Beware have your Url on file, yet, or should I send it
in now?
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Giovanni
"Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> schreef in bericht
news:3CA3E557...@Verizon.net...
Mark R. Bohn
news:666370a5.02032...@posting.google.com...
>snip<
> The most common
> offense it confusing "its" with "it's,"
I just hate it when someone rants about spelling & proofreading w/o
proofreading their post first.
Mark
MC
"Mark R. Bohn" <mark...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > The most common
> > offense it confusing "its" with "it's,"
>
>
> I just hate it when someone rants about spelling & proofreading w/o
> proofreading their post first.
It's amazing how often that happens. The number of times I've shot
myself in the foot while indulging in a spelling/punctuation/grammar
mini-flame... God's way of keeping us humble, I suspect.
Red Valerian
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote:
"High above the city of L.A. a team of terrorists HAS seized a
building, taken hostages and declared war."
>
>You're happy with the way that's punctuated?
>Curious.
Actually, I realised after I'd posted that I'd forgotten the comma
after 'hostages' in my transcription, so that particular 'error' was
mine, not the copywriter's.
However, in England, the comma before 'and' in a series is correct
usage. See the following submission guidelines, which I found at the
Cambridge University Press website:
English punctuation practice should be followed: (1) single quotation
marks, except for a "quote" within a quote; (2) punctuation outside
quotation marks, unless a complete sentence is quoted; (3) no comma
before 'and' in a series; (4) footnote indicators follow punctuation;
(5) square brackets [ ] only for interpolation in quoted matter; (6)
no stop after contractions that include the last letter of a word,
e.g. Dr, St, edn (but vol. and vols.).
Red Valerian
wrote:
>However, in England, the comma before 'and' in a series is correct
>usage. See the following submission guidelines, which I found at the
>Cambridge University Press website:
Oh dear...I meant, of course, that in England NO comma before 'and'
Mason Barge
>
I disagree. The post is livelier and better as originally written than with
all your corrections.
>> Let me lament the decline of English -- its bastardization seems
>to go
>> hand in hand with its global primacy.
>
>'Global primacy'? How can primacy be global, in the context you
>offer?
I don't understand the criticism here at all. Moreover, I think he has made a
good point in a small amount of space, especially since he is dealing with a
product marketed internationally.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln
Mason Barge
>> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
>
>
> "Let him." Not: "Let he." "Him" is for objects;
>"he" is for subjects.
I would reply, if it were not for all the posts I just read about repeated
replies :) I'm sure this will get hit hard.
ehre
david56 <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<3CA35047...@ntlworld.com>...
> Dave Friend wrote:
> >
> > >> You know that the world is going to hell when people involved with the
> > >> visual and aural industries cannot write, spell, or punctuate. I would
> > >> suggest that you do what I do and boycott the villainous knaves and
> > >> their tawdry commercial enterprises. OTOH, they know damned well that
> > >> the fools who buy their wares cannot read or write and unlikely to
> > >> notice anything that might strike some of us as errors, an we deigned
> > >> to glance at them.
> > >
> > >My experience is limited to the fact that Engineering and IT graduates
> > >cannot write, spell or punctuate. So I suppose they don't notice if the
> > >DVD covers are badly written.
> >
> > I take offense, sir! Your experience is indeed limited. :)
> >
> > Rather, we geeks consider grammar and puctuation a waste of brain activity.
> > Getting the point across is of paramount importance.
>
> You have not yet travelled far enough into the land of the ubernerd.
> Simple geekiness is not enough. Real, deep, serious propellor-heads
> write perfect English - we just see it as another programming language.
> It won't compile if we miss a semicolon.
ehre
I guess you're not a Noo Yawker, then!
Here people not only say, but actually write, "they was...."
"Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in message news:<a8046e$onptl$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>...
> "Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3CA34F96...@Verizon.net...
> > ehre wrote:
> > >
> > > Let me lament the decline of English -- its bastardization seems
> to go
> > > hand in hand with its global primacy.
> > >
> > > Just who the hell writes copy for DVD covers and content
> material????
> > >
> > > They can't seem to spell and don't seem to know their grammar.
> Typos
> > > are one thing -- and doesn't anyone proofread anymore, even with
> MS
> > > Word?? -- but poor grammar is really unforgivable. The most
> common
> > > offense it confusing "its" with "it's," using the genitive when
> the
> > > plural nominative is clearly what's intended (also "Russian's"
> for
> > > "Russians.")
> >
> > The genitive of "it" is "its." The plural nominative of "it" is
> > "they." "It's" is a contraction of a singular nominative and the
> > copulative verb form "is."
>
> Good grief, I found so much else wrong that that slipped right past
> me unnoticed.
> I think I can honestly say that I've never seen anyone use "it's" in
> place of the plural nominative.
ehre
"Mark Wallace" <mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote in message news:<a80404$o9eke$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de>...
> "ehre" <eh...@xtcnewyork.com> wrote in message
> news:666370a5.02032...@posting.google.com...
>
> > Let me lament the decline of English -- its bastardization seems
> to go
> > hand in hand with its global primacy.
>
> 'Global primacy'? How can primacy be global, in the context you
> offer?
>
>
> > Just who the hell writes copy for DVD covers and content
> material????
>
> 'Who *the* hell', rather than 'who *in* Hell' (note the case of the
> 'H')?
>
>
> > They can't seem to spell and don't seem to know their grammar.
>
> "They can't seem to spell"? Sheer nonsense, and certainly not good,
> communicative English.
> "It seem they can't spell" would be acceptable -- but are you happy
> with the repetition of 'seem'?
>
>
> > Typos
> > are one thing -- and doesn't anyone proofread anymore, even with
> MS
> > Word?? -- but poor grammar is really unforgivable.
>
> The intent of that sentence might be clear enough, but the way
> you've thrown in an ill-fitting parenthetic statement, which opens
> with a coordinating conjunction, is diabolical.
>
>
> > The most common
> > offense it confusing "its" with "it's," using the genitive when
> the
> > plural nominative is clearly what's intended (also "Russian's" for
> > "Russians.")
>
> That parenthetic statement is so badly misplaced that it's
> frightening.
>
>
> > Check out the copy or disc content on/in "The World at War,"
> "Walking
> > with Dinosaurs/Prehistoric Beasts," "Spartacus" (or was that
> > "Gladiator"?)....
>
> Where do commas go, within lists?
>
>
> > I can find more -- but those come to mind right now....
>
> 'Can'? Not 'could'?
>
>
> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
>
> You ain't him.
Mason Barge
>referred to as "he who is without sin" is to be used as the object of a verb,
>the objective form would still have to be "he who is without sin".
IMHO this is exactly correct. "Who casts the first stone" is a restrictive
clause and I think it demands a subject in nominative case.
The correct expansion is not "Let him (who casts the first stone) . . . . but
rather, "Let (he is who casts the first stone) . . .
In other words, the restriction is the fundamental meaning of the sentence and
must take emphasis.
"Let whoever is without sin" is the meaning here, and "he who" is nothing more
than a form of "whoever". I suppose you could also say "who he is who".
In fact, it might be impossible to form a correct sentence using the two words
"him who" without a comma in between.
Jacques E. Bouchard
@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de:
> Why on Earth should one refer to an American book on matters of
> English?
> What do Patagonians know about it?
> Perhaps you should ask someone who's spent umpty years writing and
> working with publishers.
Mark, in spite of having endeared yourself to others with your
charming linguistic snobbery, you've yet to show how 'forward' can in ANY
way be synonymous with 'foreword' (except through a stretch of the
imagination motivated by a desperate need to have the last word, which
I'm sure is a familiar experience with you).
Careful now, I said SYNONYMOUS, not similar or close or approximate
or even kinda sorta alike if you close one eye and tilt your head to one
side.
Begin your thrashing and flailing.
jaybee
Mark Wallace
"Jacques E. Bouchard" <jebou...@altern.org> wrote in message
news:Xns91E065CC71BD5j...@216.187.106.195...
My my, but don't we have high opinions of ourselves?
"I can read a dictionary, so I know everything there is to know",
eh? We get a lot of those, passing through the English usage
groups.
I don't recall saying that 'forward' was *synonymous* with
'foreword'. What I said was that they are "surprisingly similar to
'foreword's", which they are. They are at the front of books, and
they often contain words written by someone other than the author(s)
of the books. They often contain blank pages and other things, as
well; but I was not referring to any dissimilarities.
Whilst you're looking it up, however, also look up 'synonymous'. I
think you'll be astonished by its true meaning, judging by how
you've used it, above.
Then go and talk to any printer *of books* (I thought ought to make
that last clear, since you seem to be very capable of
misinterpreting what is written), or any publisher (of books,
again), or any author (of... guess what?).
You may then remain silent. I don't demand that people admit their
errors to me.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
Old Spice -- The Stupidest Story Ever Written
(and the second-best selling e-book in history)
The first volume is now FREE!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/os/freebie.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Wallace
> Well, I'm not the one writing DVD copy!
Me neither, thank God. I'd never live it down.
Mark Wallace
It's optional, true, if the meaning of the clause is clear without
it; but I'd be happy with a comma after 'L.A.', too.
There again, I've often been accused of 'over-punctuating'.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
For the best in Freeware
including the latest in signature encryption
visit:
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/progs01.htm
____________________________________________
Mark Wallace
See?
You can't escape the long boot of Skitt's Law!
It's safer to put mistakes in intentionally; that way, you can claim
that any extra, unintentional mistakes were intentional.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
Little girl lost?
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/mother.htm
____________________________
Mark Wallace
> No way!
>
> I guess you're not a Noo Yawker, then!
>
> Here people not only say, but actually write, "they was...."
Does them?
Well, I'll are.
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________
You want nanomachines?
I'll give you bloody nanomachines!
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/m-pages/nmaj.htm
____________________________
Richard ©ç® ²ºº²
"Giovanni" <jand...@nospamplanet.nl> wrote in message news:a81nkj$792$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...
:
: "Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> schreef in bericht
=============
It be what it am.....
Richard ©ç® ²ºº²
======================
Oh Hell!
Just kill them all and let God sort it out!
Richard ©ç® ²ºº²
"Mark R. Bohn" <mark...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:FyZo8.83$ug5.20...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
: "ehre" <eh...@xtcnewyork.com> wrote in message
================================
The most common (and annoying) offenses that I see regularly:
its it's
your you're
there their they're
to too two
Skitt
"Mason Barge" <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20020329092916...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> >
> >> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
> >
> >
> > "Let him." Not: "Let he." "Him" is for objects;
> >"he" is for subjects.
>
> I would reply, if it were not for all the posts I just read about repeated
> replies :) I'm sure this will get hit hard.
I was going to reply also, but decided not to. Anyway, since this is
turning into a voting process, I'll take the high road and vote for "Let
him." Arguing makes no sense.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Donna Richoux
> Mark Wallace (mwallac...@noknok.nl) wrote:
>
> >> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. <<
>
>
> >> "Let him." Not: "Let he." "Him" is for objects;
> "he" is for subjects. -- Mike Hardy >>
>
>
> But isn't the object "he who is without sin" rather than "he"? If a person
> referred to as "he who is without sin" is to be used as the object of a verb,
> the objective form would still have to be "he who is without sin".
King James Version:
John 8:7 When therefore they continued asking him,
he lifted up himself, and said to them, He that is
without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at
her.
The Revised Standard Version (1962) relegates John 8:1-11 to a footnote
(meaning it is of dubious authenticity) and has:
"And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and
said to them, 'Let him who is without sin among you
be the first to throw a stone at her.'"
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
Robert Lieblich
> > In article <sm68aus93nq7t01lk...@4ax.com>,
> > Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
> >
> > > You'll see this happening time and time again here. Someone will
> > > answer a question and four more people will follow with the same
> > > answer. I never could understand this. Some of these posts can
> be
> > > explained by news server time delays but not, I suspect, the
> majority.
> >
> > I use a news reader that makes this very possible. All depends on
> > whether I read the whole thread before replying on the fly.
> >
> > Replying on the fly often produces this:
> >
> > I read a message and reply to it.
> >
> > Then I read the subsequent message in the thread -- and discover
> that
> > it's a earlier reply from someone else covering the same ground.
>
> It also depends on how often you news reader updates. Mine, for
> example, is set to update only when I open a group, so that it won't
> steal system resources when I don't want it to; so leaving the
> reader open in the background for a hour or two, whilst I do
> something else, can leave me out of date by numerous postings.
>
> Besides, why pick on me for this?
> I'm very rarely guilty of it, and my posting in this thread was
> unlike anyone else's.
All your postings are unlike anyone else's, Mark. That's why they
keep you around.
--
Bob Lieblich
Me they're trying to get rid of
Eric Walker
[...]
>You'll see this happening time and time again here. Someone
>will answer a question and four more people will follow with
>the same answer. I never could understand this. Some of
>these posts can be explained by news server time delays but
>not, I suspect, the majority.
The degree to which simple concurrence is a sin depends, I
think, on the degree to which one of the other answers being
agreed with is definitive. Because there are so often
conflicting opinions presented, sometimes sharply conflicting,
posting a concurring opinion has the effect of further
validating the opinion in question for the sake of at least the
original poster seeking an answer to a question.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Owlcroft House
Robert Lieblich
That it are.
Robert Lieblich
>
> >But isn't the object "he who is without sin" rather than "he"? If a person
> >referred to as "he who is without sin" is to be used as the object of a verb,
> >the objective form would still have to be "he who is without sin".
>
> IMHO this is exactly correct. "Who casts the first stone" is a restrictive
> clause and I think it demands a subject in nominative case.
>
> The correct expansion is not "Let him (who casts the first stone) . . . . but
> rather, "Let (he is who casts the first stone) . . .
No. The subject of the dependent clause is in the nominative
already. It's "Who." The clause modifies "him," which takes its
case form from its position in its clause, and its clause is the
basic independent clause "Let him cast ..."
This one should be covered by any decent grammar book, and I have
never seen a grammar book that tried to justify "he" even as an
alternative. (I had an English teacher once who tried, but she was
notorious for getting things wrong.
--
Bob Lieblich
Let I help you
Robert Lieblich
>
> >Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
> >
> >You ain't him.
>
> I disagree. The post is livelier and better as originally written than with
> all your corrections.
Mason, please, whom are you talking to? Whom are you talking
about? We need the attributions.
Mason Barge
OK, point taken.
--
Buckaroo
grammar instead. This whole discussion is mired in the muck of old-time
nonsensical, diagrammatical crap.
"Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kzXo8.5987$2q1.3...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "RorysMusicCafe2" <rorysmu...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020329045230...@mb-mj.aol.com...
> > Mark Wallace (mwallac...@noknok.nl) wrote:
> >
> > >> Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. <<
> >
> >
> > >> "Let him." Not: "Let he." "Him" is for objects;
> > "he" is for subjects. -- Mike Hardy >>
> >
> >
> > But isn't the object "he who is without sin" rather than "he"? If a
> person
> > referred to as "he who is without sin" is to be used as the object of a
> verb,
> > the objective form would still have to be "he who is without sin".
>
> No. Mike is right. Remove the relative clause, and you get "Let him cast
the
> first stone", "him" being the object of "let". The insertion of the
relative
> clause leaves this structure intact. Within the relative clause, "who" is
> the subject of "is" and is therefore (depending on the terminology you
use)
> in the nominative or subjective case.
>
> This proverbial sentence is modified from St John's Gospel: "He that is
> without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". The "he" there
is
> not part of the main sentence, but a "vocative" external to the
structure -
> hence it is in the subjective/nominative form. Once within the structure
of
> the main sentence, the former "he" has to become "him".
>
> Alan Jones
>
>
>
>
John Savard
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote, in part:>news:96c8ausn2m2kcq6h5...@4ax.com...
>> "High above the city of L.A. a team of terrorists HAS seized a
>> building, taken hostages and declared war."
>> It made my heart glad.
>You're happy with the way that's punctuated?
>Curious.
Although one could add a comma after "hostages", a comma at that point
is not compulsory. One is normally used only when one is emphasizing
that one is making a list. So he is correct that the given sentence is
an example of correct punctuation.
John Savard
http://members.shaw.ca/quadibloc/index.html
John Savard
<mwallac...@noknok.nl> wrote, in part:
>It's optional, true, if the meaning of the clause is clear without
>it; but I'd be happy with a comma after 'L.A.', too.
Yes, a comma in that position is also permissible, but again not
obligatory.
John Savard
http://members.shaw.ca/quadibloc/index.html
Mason Barge
>grammar instead. This whole discussion is mired in the muck of old-time
>nonsensical, diagrammatical crap.
>
>
>"Alan Jones"
I don't understand your point. Polemic is fine but I would like to hear your
viewpoint on the subject.