Here's a question
Charlie Pearce
Is it possible to be "happy for somebody" yet not happy oneself?
Also, in occasions or circumstances where this phrase seems to be used
most often (announcements of pending nuptuals etc.), surely the object
of the expression hardly needs somebody to be happy on their behalf,
since they will presumably already be happy?
The best answer I can come up with is that the person using the phrase
simply means "I'm happy", but tacks on "for you" so as to seem
gracious and unselfish.
Babylon 5: The Meaning of Sentences
Charlie
--
Remove NO-SPOO-PLEASE from my email address to reply
Please send no unsolicited email or foodstuffs
John Duffey
<charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote:
> The best answer I can come up with is that the person using
> the phrase simply means "I'm happy", but tacks on "for you" so
> as to seem gracious and unselfish.
I think that might be about right.
It's all about self-serving. Those who perform charitable acts
do so because the thought of helping others less fortunate
provides a "reward" in the form of salved conscience.
My interpretation of the sentence would be "I am very pleased
because seeing that you are pleased gives me a form of personal
pleasure".
John
--
Mark Blunden
> What does the phrase "I'm really happy for you" actually mean?
>
> Is it possible to be "happy for somebody" yet not happy oneself?
> Also, in occasions or circumstances where this phrase seems to be used
> most often (announcements of pending nuptuals etc.), surely the object
> of the expression hardly needs somebody to be happy on their behalf,
> since they will presumably already be happy?
I believe it's something to do with empathy - and not the Trek kind.
> The best answer I can come up with is that the person using the phrase
> simply means "I'm happy", but tacks on "for you" so as to seem
> gracious and unselfish.
Nope. It's if you hear about something that's good news for a close friend,
and find that it makes you feel glad even though it has no direct effect on
you at all (or, in extreme cases, even if it has a negative effect on you) -
you're happy, but only because your friend is doing well, not because you
are.
--
Mark.
* The second rule of combat - never over-estimate your enemy
Dam6
small amount of jealously. When you finish with your girlfriend / boyfriend
and you see them passing:
"My new girlfriend is Da Bomd! She does everything that you never! Goes to
the Gym AND likes my computer!"
Trying to look happy, "Well... I'm really happy for you...!"
"Mark Blunden" <m.blunde...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c0efhl$166jqi$1...@ID-36588.news.uni-berlin.de...
Simon Jones
"Charlie Pearce" <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote in
message news:402a81a2...@news.plus.net...
> What does the phrase "I'm really happy for you" actually mean?
It can be one of two things:
1. Totally insincere, and just said because it's the thing to say.
2. It's sincere, and basically means "I'm really happy that you're happy,
because that in turn makes me happy beacuse [reason]." So it's still a
selfish thought, in essence, but that doesn't change the fact that you are
indeed happy that the other person is happy.
smj
Simon Jones
"Mark Blunden" <m.blunde...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c0efhl$166jqi$1...@ID-36588.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > The best answer I can come up with is that the person using the phrase
> > simply means "I'm happy", but tacks on "for you" so as to seem
> > gracious and unselfish.
>
> Nope. It's if you hear about something that's good news for a close
friend,
> and find that it makes you feel glad even though it has no direct effect
on
> you at all (or, in extreme cases, even if it has a negative effect on
you) -
> you're happy, but only because your friend is doing well, not because you
> are.
Ah, but it does have a direct effect on you.
If your friend is happy, then they will be a good, fun person to be around.
The relationship will be good.
If your friend is unhappy, they're likely to moan and generally be annoying.
Now, if you're a good friend you'll put up with this and possibly even try
to help them out (at least, up to a point), but there's no denying that
you'd much rather they just sort themselves out and stop whining.
If you're surrounded by happy people, chance are it's going to help make you
feel happy too. If you're surrounded by unhappy, moaning goits, chances are
you'll end up like that too.
So it still comes down to being selfish, essentially. :)
smj
Charlie Pearce
OK, but from a grammatical point of view, what on earth is the "for
you" bit all about? It doesn't seem to make any sense (like a lot of
the English language) - "I'm happy", "I'm happy with you", "I'm happy
that you're happy" etc. all make perfect sense, but to me "I'm happy
for you" doesn't cut it in my book...
Babylon 5: The Mystery of Semantics
EvilBill
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:12:57 -0000, "Simon Jones"
> <tarnyy...@csb-digital.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charlie Pearce" <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote in
> >message news:402a81a2...@news.plus.net...
> >> What does the phrase "I'm really happy for you" actually mean?
> >
> >It can be one of two things:
> >
> >1. Totally insincere, and just said because it's the thing to say.
> >
> >2. It's sincere, and basically means "I'm really happy that you're happy,
> >because that in turn makes me happy beacuse [reason]." So it's still a
> >selfish thought, in essence, but that doesn't change the fact that you
are
> >indeed happy that the other person is happy.
>
> OK, but from a grammatical point of view, what on earth is the "for
> you" bit all about? It doesn't seem to make any sense (like a lot of
> the English language) - "I'm happy", "I'm happy with you", "I'm happy
> that you're happy" etc. all make perfect sense, but to me "I'm happy
> for you" doesn't cut it in my book...
>
It's just the lazy way of saying 'I'm happy that you're happy', really.
Probably started being used by people who weren't too conversant with
English grammar. In the same way that people use 'should of' instead of
'should have' nowadays (grrrr).
--
--
* "Assimilation turns us all into friends." - Borg Queen
Remove COLLECTIVERECTUM to e-mail.
Web: http://www.evilbill.co.uk
AIM: EvilBill1782
MSN: dev...@agqx-imperium.fsnet.co.uk
The Jack of Hearts of the Eeeevil Trek Cabal (TINC)
Steveski
>> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:12:57 -0000, "Simon Jones"
>> <tarnyy...@csb-digital.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Charlie Pearce" <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk>
>>> wrote in message news:402a81a2...@news.plus.net...
>>>> What does the phrase "I'm really happy for you" actually mean?
>>>
>>> It can be one of two things:
>>>
>>> 1. Totally insincere, and just said because it's the thing to say.
>>>
>>> 2. It's sincere, and basically means "I'm really happy that you're
>>> happy, because that in turn makes me happy beacuse [reason]." So
>>> it's still a selfish thought, in essence, but that doesn't change
>>> the fact that you are indeed happy that the other person is happy.
>>
>> OK, but from a grammatical point of view, what on earth is the "for
>> you" bit all about? It doesn't seem to make any sense (like a lot of
>> the English language) - "I'm happy", "I'm happy with you", "I'm happy
>> that you're happy" etc. all make perfect sense, but to me "I'm happy
>> for you" doesn't cut it in my book...
>>
>
> It's just the lazy way of saying 'I'm happy that you're happy',
> really. Probably started being used by people who weren't too
> conversant with English grammar. In the same way that people use
> 'should of' instead of 'should have' nowadays (grrrr).
However, equally, you can say "I'm pleased for you". So where does that fit
in? I completely agree with you about the modern erosion of speech and
writing but grammar should rely on logic so I'm just playing 'Morden's
Advocate'. :-)
Steveski
Iain Clark
Surely it means "I'm happy on your behalf". i.e. "I like you and I'm
demonstrating that by empathising with your situation, and
understanding how you must feel."
Iain
--
"You've contracted American dreams."
VinceH (real address)
Simon Jones <tarnyy...@csb-digital.com> wrote:
> If you're surrounded by happy people, chance are it's going to
> help make you feel happy too. If you're surrounded by unhappy,
> moaning goits, chances are you'll end up like that too.
Bollix.
I get grumpy around happy people. Don't like 'em. They
should all be shot.
And unhappy people cheer me up. I like to see people
suffering. Bastids the lot of them.
Babylon 5: The Mastery of Sadism.
VinceH
--
VinceH can be found in the vicinity of http://www.vinceh.com
Soft Rock Software can be found around http://www.softrock.co.uk
WebChange2 for RISC OS & Windows is at http://www.webchange.co.uk
Simon Jones
"VinceH (real address)" <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4c7fc89...@softrock.co.uk...
> > If you're surrounded by happy people, chance are it's going to
> > help make you feel happy too. If you're surrounded by unhappy,
> > moaning goits, chances are you'll end up like that too.
>
> Bollix.
>
> I get grumpy around happy people. Don't like 'em. They
> should all be shot.
Ah, that's because you've become too accustomed to being grumpy. Been in a
frame of mind for so long that you can't get out of it.
smj, stabbing with straws
Simon Jones
> >> What does the phrase "I'm really happy for you" actually mean?
> >
> >It can be one of two things:
> >
> >1. Totally insincere, and just said because it's the thing to say.
> >
> >2. It's sincere, and basically means "I'm really happy that you're happy,
> >because that in turn makes me happy beacuse [reason]." So it's still a
> >selfish thought, in essence, but that doesn't change the fact that you
are
> >indeed happy that the other person is happy.
>
> OK, but from a grammatical point of view, what on earth is the "for
> you" bit all about? It doesn't seem to make any sense (like a lot of
> the English language) - "I'm happy", "I'm happy with you", "I'm happy
> that you're happy" etc. all make perfect sense, but to me "I'm happy
> for you" doesn't cut it in my book...
Well, it usually relates to something positive that has just happened to the
other person. Therefore you're happy on their behalf that whatever just
happened happened.
ie, you're not happy for yourself, you're happy for them.[1]
smj
[1] Other than the clauses we've covered already.
Simon Jones
"EvilBill" <evilbillCOLL...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:c0ggvp$16qmk7$1...@ID-160726.news.uni-berlin.de...
> In the same way that people use 'should of' instead of
> 'should have' nowadays (grrrr).
Speak for yourself.
smj
Simon Jones
"Steveski" <steveski7...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:c0gi9o$11te5p$1...@ID-36653.news.uni-berlin.de...
> However, equally, you can say "I'm pleased for you". So where does that
fit
> in? I completely agree with you about the modern erosion of speech and
> writing but grammar should rely on logic so I'm just playing 'Morden's
> Advocate'. :-)
I very much doubt it's a modern thing. Modern language quirks are just the
latest stage in the long bastardisation of language.
Informal conversational language has always been fairly relaxed, as has been
informal written language. However, professional writing (either technical,
or fiction, etc) has always been to a fairly high standard. Doubt much has
changed. The only difference is that we come across other people's rubbish
language skills more regularly these days due to increased communications.
smj
VinceH (real address)
Simon Jones <tarnyy...@csb-digital.com> wrote:
> "VinceH (real address)" <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4c7fc89...@softrock.co.uk...
> > I get grumpy around happy people. Don't like 'em. They
> > should all be shot.
> Ah, that's because you've become too accustomed to being
> grumpy. Been in a frame of mind for so long that you can't get
> out of it.
What a load of old humbug. I'm really cheerful, me.
Babylon 5: The Mechanics of Smiling.
John Duffey
Jones <tarnyy...@csb-digital.com> wrote:
> Informal conversational language has always been fairly
> relaxed, as has been informal written language. However,
> professional writing (either technical, or fiction, etc) has
> always been to a fairly high standard.
Possibly.
I have had many arguments with "senior" members of staff in some
of my myriad temping jobs with regards to quality of formal
documentation.
Some of these allegedly highly educated people cannot grasp that
starting a letter "Dear Sir," is not being sexist or incorrect,
and that "or Madam" appended is a superfluity. Some of these
bachelors degree holding people seem to think that "Please
contact either the Help Desk or myself" would be an appropriate
sentence construction. When explaining that "myself" should be
replaced in favour of "me", they seem to think the sentence
sounds "too colloquial".
I sometimes wish I had carried a copy of Bryson's "Troublesome
Words" around with me.
> Doubt much has changed.
I don't.
I suspect, Simon, that going to an International School gave you
a better grounding in the rules of the English Language than
most of the poor bastards who were subject to 80's and 90's
Comprehensive education. I learned more English grammar from my
French and German lessons than my English. I actually only
learned what an adjective was when Chas et al appeared on the
scene.
> The only difference is that we come across other people's
> rubbish language skills more regularly these days due to
> increased communications.
This is entirely possible.
Of course, this should enable us to improve our language through
exposure, however I sincerely doubt that "txtng yr m8s" will
improve anything at all, other than the wage packets of those
physicians specialising in digital arthritis.
John
--
Simon Jones
"John Duffey" <jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:4c800ee0...@freeuk.com...
> > Doubt much has changed.
>
> I don't.
>
> I suspect, Simon, that going to an International School gave you
> a better grounding in the rules of the English Language than
> most of the poor bastards who were subject to 80's and 90's
> Comprehensive education. I learned more English grammar from my
> French and German lessons than my English. I actually only
> learned what an adjective was when Chas et al appeared on the
> scene.
I doubt the international school helped much. It was at least a year behind
teaching standards in the UK.
I expect what helped was being addicted to books from a very, very early
age, not watching much television (and, when I did, it was fairly good
stuff - ie, not game shows and shit), writing fiction constantly (sure, not
good stuff, but it's all practice) and the like.
I still have absolutely no idea about formal grammar. I couldn't explain
grammatical structure to anybody. If somebody asked me to break a sentence
down into its component parts, I wouldn't have a clue. I know how to write
and I can write damn well when I want to, but I do it instinctively and
naturally due to exposure and lots of practice, rather than through any kind
of linguistic science or structure.
> > The only difference is that we come across other people's
> > rubbish language skills more regularly these days due to
> > increased communications.
>
> This is entirely possible.
>
> Of course, this should enable us to improve our language through
> exposure, however I sincerely doubt that "txtng yr m8s" will
> improve anything at all, other than the wage packets of those
> physicians specialising in digital arthritis.
Indeed. The arrival of 'txt' is greatly worrying. I expect it will result in
some phenomenally stupid people in about 5-10 years' time, to rival even the
stupidity of current day plebs.
smj
Charlie Pearce
<jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>In article <c0h4gl$1666tp$1...@ID-214631.news.uni-berlin.de>, Simon
>Jones <tarnyy...@csb-digital.com> wrote:
>> Informal conversational language has always been fairly
>> relaxed, as has been informal written language. However,
>> professional writing (either technical, or fiction, etc) has
>> always been to a fairly high standard.
>
>Possibly.
>
>I have had many arguments with "senior" members of staff in some
>of my myriad temping jobs with regards to quality of formal
>documentation.
>
>Some of these allegedly highly educated people cannot grasp that
>starting a letter "Dear Sir," is not being sexist or incorrect,
>and that "or Madam" appended is a superfluity. Some of these
>bachelors degree holding people seem to think that "Please
>contact either the Help Desk or myself" would be an appropriate
>sentence construction. When explaining that "myself" should be
>replaced in favour of "me", they seem to think the sentence
>sounds "too colloquial".
AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHH!!!! That should have made my shitlist - I
*HATE* it when people misuse "myself", "yourself" etc. An erstwhile
colleague used to work in a bank, and was the worst offender I've
met...
Mind you, I think I'm easily upset these days - somebody pointed out
that I audibly mutter "Whom!" whenever somebody wrongly uses "who"
instead.
Is proper English actually taught any more? Does the National
Curriculum require that schoolchildren are taught the difference
between "who" and "whom", "number of" and "amount of", "less than" and
"fewer than" etc., or is it just left to chance?
Charlie Pearce
Fuck! I was that worked up I forgot the now-obligatory acronym.
Babylon 5: The Mangling of Sentences
That covers the previous email, now one to cover my present mood:
Babylon 5: The Month of Shit
Iain Clark
charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk (Charlie Pearce) wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:15:32 +0000 (GMT), John Duffey
><jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <c0h4gl$1666tp$1...@ID-214631.news.uni-berlin.de>, Simon
>>Jones <tarnyy...@csb-digital.com> wrote:
>>> Informal conversational language has always been fairly
>>> relaxed, as has been informal written language. However,
>>> professional writing (either technical, or fiction, etc) has
>>> always been to a fairly high standard.
>>
>>Possibly.
>>
>>I have had many arguments with "senior" members of staff in some
>>of my myriad temping jobs with regards to quality of formal
>>documentation.
>>
>>Some of these allegedly highly educated people cannot grasp that
>>starting a letter "Dear Sir," is not being sexist or incorrect,
>>and that "or Madam" appended is a superfluity. Some of these
>>bachelors degree holding people seem to think that "Please
>>contact either the Help Desk or myself" would be an appropriate
>>sentence construction. When explaining that "myself" should be
>>replaced in favour of "me", they seem to think the sentence
>>sounds "too colloquial".
>
Well, to be fair, it does! I know using "myself" is wrong, but it
doesn't bother me. It's just the way language changes with time.
>AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHH!!!! That should have made my shitlist - I
>*HATE* it when people misuse "myself", "yourself" etc. An erstwhile
>colleague used to work in a bank, and was the worst offender I've
>met...
>
>Mind you, I think I'm easily upset these days - somebody pointed out
>that I audibly mutter "Whom!" whenever somebody wrongly uses "who"
>instead.
>
Yes, I notice that all the time. I tend to use it correctly when
writing, but not in spoken English when I'm always afraid it makes me
sound like a complete ponce. ;-)
Whom do you serve and whom do you trust...
>Is proper English actually taught any more? Does the National
>Curriculum require that schoolchildren are taught the difference
>between "who" and "whom", "number of" and "amount of", "less than" and
>"fewer than" etc., or is it just left to chance?
The ones that bother me are "there" and "their", "its" and "it's".
Apostrophes get used incorrectly all the time, even on official
signage.
Also most people seem to have no idea what a semi-colon is; they use
commas to join sentences.
On the other hand, sometimes sloppy language works perfectly well.
One thing I do often abuse is starting sentences with "And", But"
etc., because I think it reads better than long rambling sentences.
But what do I know? ;-)
Iain
--
"What'll I tell him
When he comes to me for absolution?"
Iain Clark
It *really* irritates me when people use "could of" and "should of".
Charlie Pearce
Ah, that's one thing I'm very guilty of, in this froup at least.
And I don't give five buggers or a titwank.
Babylon 5: The Monkeys of Sarawak
Charlie Pearce
<iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:08:36 -0000, "Simon Jones"
><tarnyy...@csb-digital.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"EvilBill" <evilbillCOLL...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>>news:c0ggvp$16qmk7$1...@ID-160726.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>> In the same way that people use 'should of' instead of
>>> 'should have' nowadays (grrrr).
>>
>>Speak for yourself.
>>
>It *really* irritates me when people use "could of" and "should of".
Worse - a friend at work not only drops the "H" in "has" when
speaking, but also in all his emails!
VinceH (real address)
John Duffey <jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> Some of these bachelors degree holding people seem to think
> that "Please contact either the Help Desk or myself" would be
> an appropriate sentence construction. When explaining that
> "myself" should be replaced in favour of "me", they seem to
> think the sentence sounds "too colloquial".
My understanding is that both are valid, but my personal
choice would be to use 'myself'.
Babylon 5: The Making of Sentences.
Iain Clark
charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk (Charlie Pearce) wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:02:00 +0000, Iain Clark
><iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:08:36 -0000, "Simon Jones"
>><tarnyy...@csb-digital.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"EvilBill" <evilbillCOLL...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>>>news:c0ggvp$16qmk7$1...@ID-160726.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>>> In the same way that people use 'should of' instead of
>>>> 'should have' nowadays (grrrr).
>>>
>>>Speak for yourself.
>>>
>>It *really* irritates me when people use "could of" and "should of".
>
>Worse - a friend at work not only drops the "H" in "has" when
>speaking, but also in all his emails!
>
It's one of those revelatory moments when you realise that this person
has only ever learned the word (or phrase) from hearing it spoken, and
has no idea what it should look like on paper. Exactly the same as
hearing "could've" and assuming that it's "could of." We all do it at
some time in our lives, but it's quite jarring when you hear a basic
blunder from an adult. :-)
I find that kind of thing quite fascinating, because it's the way that
all language gradually mutates. People learn language by interpreting
what they hear. Often they understand the meaning of a phrase from
the context, but not the literal meaning, or the exact words and
grammar being used. So they write "with baited breath" instead of
"with bated breath".
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Charlie Pearce
<sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4c800ee0...@freeuk.com>,
> John Duffey <jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> Some of these bachelors degree holding people seem to think
>> that "Please contact either the Help Desk or myself" would be
>> an appropriate sentence construction. When explaining that
>> "myself" should be replaced in favour of "me", they seem to
>> think the sentence sounds "too colloquial".
>
>My understanding is that both are valid, but my personal
>choice would be to use 'myself'.
I am not a grammatacist, but I always thought that reflexive pronouns
could only be used with the personal pronoun of the same person (I'm
sure there's a better way of saying that!).
"I hit myself" - Good.
"You hit yourself" - Also good.
"You hit myself" - Bad.
The Arcane Chas
contemplation, John Duffey <jdu...@freeuk.com> put finger to keyboard
and produced the following;
>
>I have had many arguments with "senior" members of staff in some
>of my myriad temping jobs with regards to quality of formal
>documentation.
>
>Some of these allegedly highly educated people cannot grasp that
>starting a letter "Dear Sir," is not being sexist or incorrect,
>and that "or Madam" appended is a superfluity. Some of these
>bachelors degree holding people seem to think that "Please
>contact either the Help Desk or myself" would be an appropriate
>sentence construction. When explaining that "myself" should be
>replaced in favour of "me", they seem to think the sentence
>sounds "too colloquial".
That's also one of my pet hates. It's even worse when it's used on the
'phone - why people have a problem with the word "me" is a real mystery
to myself. ;-}
>I learned more English grammar from my
>French and German lessons than my English. I actually only
>learned what an adjective was when Chas et al appeared on the
>scene.
Hehe.
In one of our FAQs the alternative definition of the Adjective Army was
suggested to be "a team of super-geeks who participate in grammar
contests".
>Of course, this should enable us to improve our language through
>exposure, however I sincerely doubt that "txtng yr m8s" will
>improve anything at all,
U msplld "ur" !!!!1!
--
Cheers,
Chas.
"Reality leaves a lot to the imagination".
The Arcane Chas
contemplation, Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-
PLEASE.co.uk> put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
>Is proper English actually taught any more? Does the National
>Curriculum require that schoolchildren are taught the difference
>between "who" and "whom", "number of" and "amount of", "less than" and
>"fewer than" etc., or is it just left to chance?
My current bete-noir is (and has been for some time) the increasing use
of the phrase "try and .....". If you entertain any doubts as to the of
such usage try to (note the correct form) convert the phrase into
another tense - e.g. tried and ......".
Of course, there are (few) exceptions to this rule - we could pass a
little time trying to identify them. ;-}
Charlie Pearce
try and sentence?
John Duffey
Chas <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> That's also one of my pet hates. It's even worse when it's
> used on the 'phone - why people have a problem with the word
> "me" is a real mystery to myself. ;-}
Obviously, another of the thing's you and myself have in common.
<g>
John
--
John Duffey
> choice would be to use 'myself'.
Happy to make yourself look like a tit, are you?
John
--
Charlie Pearce
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Take that greengrocer's apostrophe outside and shoot it!
Babylon 5: The Moment of Stupidity
Charlie Pearce
charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk (Charlie Pearce) wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:27:09 +0000 (GMT), John Duffey
><jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <fIViUIAl...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk>, The Arcane
>>Chas <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> That's also one of my pet hates. It's even worse when it's
>>> used on the 'phone - why people have a problem with the word
>>> "me" is a real mystery to myself. ;-}
>>
>>Obviously, another of the thing's you and myself have in common.
>
>AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
>
>Take that greengrocer's apostrophe outside and shoot it!
(though I am just about prepared to accept that it may have been
deliberately placed, it still offends me greatly)
Babylon 5: The Marshmallows of Soot
VinceH (real address)
Is that a twatfisted way of saying that I am incorrect
in my understanding?
You could well be right, but you benefit from taking a
lesson from Charlie in how to make the point using a
somewhat more convincing argument.
The Arcane Chas
contemplation, Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-
PLEASE.co.uk> put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 13:27:09 +0000 (GMT), John Duffey
><jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>>Obviously, another of the thing's you and myself have in common.
>
>AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
>
>Take that greengrocer's apostrophe outside and shoot it!
Yes - he obviously meant to type ".... another of the things' you
and.....". ;-}
Pete Smith
PLEASE.co.uk says...
> Mind you, I think I'm easily upset these days - somebody pointed out
> that I audibly mutter "Whom!" whenever somebody wrongly uses "who"
> instead.
>
> Is proper English actually taught any more? Does the National
> Curriculum require that schoolchildren are taught the difference
> between "who" and "whom", "number of" and "amount of", "less than" and
> "fewer than" etc., or is it just left to chance?
I've never been taught the difference between the first two, but the rest
I'm comfortable with.
Can anyone shed any light on the rules?
And can anyone shed any light on how to drown out the shrieks of a baby?
Pete.
--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail
Charlie Pearce
<pete...@lethe.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <402d0af...@news.plus.net>, charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-
>PLEASE.co.uk says...
>> Mind you, I think I'm easily upset these days - somebody pointed out
>> that I audibly mutter "Whom!" whenever somebody wrongly uses "who"
>> instead.
>>
>> Is proper English actually taught any more? Does the National
>> Curriculum require that schoolchildren are taught the difference
>> between "who" and "whom", "number of" and "amount of", "less than" and
>> "fewer than" etc., or is it just left to chance?
>
>I've never been taught the difference between the first two, but the rest
>I'm comfortable with.
>
>Can anyone shed any light on the rules?
It's pretty easy (most of the time).
"Who" is a subject pronoun just like "I, he, she, they" etc., and
"whom" is an object pronoun just like "me, him, her, them" etc. So
you should use "whom" rather than "who" where the pronoun refers to
the object of the sentence rather than the subject.
For example:
I hit the ball, she hit the ball, they hit the ball, who hit the ball?
The ball hit me, the ball hit her, the ball hit them, the ball hit
whom?
There was a large billboard advertisment near my home a year or so
ago, I think aimed at increasing youth awareness in politics, with the
slogan "WHO VOTES FOR WHO?" Aaaarrggghhh!!
Also irritating is the AC/DC album "Who Made Who".
Babylon 5: The Mentor of Syntax
Charlie Pearce
<pete...@lethe.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <402d0af...@news.plus.net>, charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-
>PLEASE.co.uk says...
>> Mind you, I think I'm easily upset these days - somebody pointed out
>> that I audibly mutter "Whom!" whenever somebody wrongly uses "who"
>> instead.
>>
>> Is proper English actually taught any more? Does the National
>> Curriculum require that schoolchildren are taught the difference
>> between "who" and "whom", "number of" and "amount of", "less than" and
>> "fewer than" etc., or is it just left to chance?
>
>I've never been taught the difference between the first two, but the rest
>I'm comfortable with.
>
>Can anyone shed any light on the rules?
>
>And can anyone shed any light on how to drown out the shrieks of a baby?
Abstinence.
Babylon 5: The Mitigating of Shrieks
Alex
<pete...@lethe.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <402d0af...@news.plus.net>, charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-
>PLEASE.co.uk says...
>And can anyone shed any light on how to drown out the shrieks of a baby?
>
Several methods:
1. Earplugs - bloody good ones.
2. Load rock music.
3. Go to the pub.
4. Any combination of the above.
5. Alternatively, find the cause of the shrieks and fix it.
Check for:
a. Wet. Check nappy.
b. Shitty. As above
c. Cold. Hand on back.
d. Hot. Hand on head.
e. Hungry. Check nipple seeking behaviour (seriously).
f. Tired. Check baby's diary.
g. Bored. Does entertainment help?
h. Generally pissed off. We all feel like that
sometimes.
i: Possessed. Check for excessive head spinning.
j. Is in fact seagull. White feathers.
k. Has seen rock star. Posters on wall.
In any case, toddlers are harder to ignore and teenagers are louder.
Everybody needs a break. Use grandparents, other relatives and anyone
else you trust whenever you can to get it. Sane, relatively well
rested parents put up with shrieks better.
Good luck.
Alex
but don't worry about baby noise
Alex
wrote:
Don't know where that line came from.
Babylon 5: The Muting of Smallhumans
Steve Brooks
<snip>
> Babylon 5: The Mechanics of Smiling.
I see a new theme has developed in my absence.
Babylon 5: The Inevitability of Silliness.
--
SB
Steve Brooks
> "John Duffey" wrote
>>> Doubt much has changed.
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>> I suspect, Simon, that going to an International School gave you
>> a better grounding in the rules of the English Language than
>> most of the poor bastards who were subject to 80's and 90's
>> Comprehensive education. I learned more English grammar from my
>> French and German lessons than my English. I actually only
>> learned what an adjective was when Chas et al appeared on the
>> scene.
>
> I doubt the international school helped much. It was at least a year
> behind teaching standards in the UK.
It must ahve been a bugger getting between lessons too. Tueday morning:
English in Brussels followed by double physics in Madrid etc..
--
SB
John Duffey
Smith <pete...@lethe.org.uk> wrote:
> > Is proper English actually taught any more? Does the
> > National Curriculum require that schoolchildren are taught
> > the difference between "who" and "whom", "number of" and
> > "amount of", "less than" and "fewer than" etc., or is it
> > just left to chance?
> I've never been taught the difference between the first two,
> but the rest I'm comfortable with.
> Can anyone shed any light on the rules?
Bill Bryson already has done.
I shall distil the relevant information into short form for you.
Whom is used when it is the object of a preposition ("To whom it
may concern") or verb ("The man whom we saw last night") or the
subject of a complimentary infinitive ("The person whom we took
to be your father"). Who is used on all other occasions.
> And can anyone shed any light on how to drown out the shrieks
> of a baby?
Chloroform.
John
--
Charlie Pearce
But what if the shrieks are still going on when you regain
consciousness?
Babylon 5: The Monotony of Squirts
John W. Kennedy
> And can anyone shed any light on how to drown out the shrieks of a baby?
Evolution doesn't want you to.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Arthur Buse
JMS has said he is working on a new Babylon 5 project called B5:TMoS
and we were trying to guess what the initials could stand for. Then we
got silly.
Channel 4 scheduling: Babylon 5: Thursday, Monday, or Saturday.
--
Arthur.
John Duffey
John W. Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > And can anyone shed any light on how to drown out the
> > shrieks of a baby?
> Evolution doesn't want you to.
I can just imagine Pete sitting there, beer in one hand, sword
in t'other screaming and bellowing with rage "Evolution can kiss
my arse!" (In his slightly Welsh accent)
John
--
Pete Smith
alex.m...@virgin.net says...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:51:08 -0000, Pete Smith
> <pete...@lethe.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <402d0af...@news.plus.net>, charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-
> >PLEASE.co.uk says...
>
> >And can anyone shed any light on how to drown out the shrieks of a baby?
> >
> Several methods:
>
> 1. Earplugs - bloody good ones.
Not found any of those yet.
> 2. Load rock music.
> 3. Go to the pub.
> 4. Any combination of the above.
> 5. Alternatively, find the cause of the shrieks and fix it.
> Check for:
> a. Wet. Check nappy.
> b. Shitty. As above.
They're easy. They cause a "Grizzle" noise.
> c. Cold. Hand on back.
> d. Hot. Hand on head.
We use back of the neck for these.
> e. Hungry. Check nipple seeking behaviour (seriously).
Madeline has a better one than that. She has "Food Hands". If she's hungry,
she'll scream, and her hands will make little circles in front of her. If
it's wind, her legs pump in and out ("Windy Legs")
> f. Tired. Check baby's diary.
> g. Bored. Does entertainment help?
Not normally ;-)
> h. Generally pissed off. We all feel like that sometimes.
Bottom lip sticks out!
> i: Possessed. Check for excessive head spinning.
> j. Is in fact seagull. White feathers.
> k. Has seen rock star. Posters on wall.
>
> In any case, toddlers are harder to ignore and teenagers are louder.
>
> Everybody needs a break. Use grandparents, other relatives and anyone
> else you trust whenever you can to get it. Sane, relatively well
> rested parents put up with shrieks better.
She's not that bad. She was just screaming for food when I posted :-)
The Arcane Chas
after serious contemplation, Steve Brooks <IDontHave...@hotmail.co
m> put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
Yes it has - but that isn't it.
Babylon 5: The Mistake of Steve. ;-}
Steve Brooks
> Steve Brooks put finger to keyboard and produced
> the following;
>> VinceH (real address) wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Babylon 5: The Mechanics of Smiling.
>>
>> I see a new theme has developed in my absence.
>>
>> Babylon 5: The Inevitability of Silliness.
>
> Yes it has - but that isn't it.
>
> Babylon 5: The Mistake of Steve. ;-}
That should be mistakes - It's a very long list.
--
SB
The Arcane Chas
>The Arcane Chas wrote:
>>
>> Babylon 5: The Mistake of Steve. ;-}
>
>That should be mistakes - It's a very long list.
I know that this is out of character but I was being kind.
Babylon 5: The Manifestation of Sympathy.
Arthur Buse
<sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4c809e9b...@freeuk.com>,
> John Duffey <jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> In article <4c803b1...@softrock.co.uk>,
>> VinceH (real address) <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > My understanding is that both are valid, but my personal
>> > choice would be to use 'myself'.
>
>> Happy to make yourself look like a tit, are you?
>
>Is that a twatfisted way of saying that I am incorrect
>in my understanding?
>
>You could well be right, but you benefit from taking a
>lesson from Charlie in how to make the point using a
>somewhat more convincing argument.
If you would write
"Please contact either the Help Desk or myself"
then would you write
"Please contact myself"
or would you write
"Please contact me" ?
--
Arthur
Arthur Buse
<iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:08:36 -0000, "Simon Jones"
><tarnyy...@csb-digital.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"EvilBill" <evilbillCOLL...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>>news:c0ggvp$16qmk7$1...@ID-160726.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>> In the same way that people use 'should of' instead of
>>> 'should have' nowadays (grrrr).
>>
>>Speak for yourself.
>>
>It *really* irritates me when people use "could of" and "should of".
I hate "Amanda Tapping off of Stargate", if you see what I mean.
--
Arthur.
Steve Brooks
> Steve Brooks put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
>> The Arcane Chas wrote:
>>>
>>> Babylon 5: The Mistake of Steve. ;-}
>>
>> That should be mistakes - It's a very long list.
>
> I know that this is out of character but I was being kind.
>
> Babylon 5: The Manifestation of Sympathy.
How delightfully unexpected.
Babylon 5: The Mystery of Serendipity.
--
SB
Pete Smith
Close, but no cigar/banana.
It's likely to be 12-18 year old single malt, and a double barrel, pump
action combat shotgun in the other.
And I don't have an accent, welsh or otherwise. People can't place where I
come from, other than an imaginary line between the Bristol Channel & The
Wash, because I pronounce bath bath not barth.
John Duffey
12's way too young for me.
16-18 year olds are just fine.
I take it "malt" is another word for "girl"?
> and a double barrel, pump action combat shotgun in the other.
Can you get double barrel pump action guns?
Seems a bit silly to me.
Double barrel = fire one barrel and there's still a round in the
other.
Pump action = fire one round and another one's loaded when the
pump is pumped?
John
--
The Arcane Chas
>The Arcane Chas wrote:
>> Steve Brooks put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
>>> The Arcane Chas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Babylon 5: The Mistake of Steve. ;-}
>>>
>>> That should be mistakes - It's a very long list.
>>
>> I know that this is out of character but I was being kind.
>>
>> Babylon 5: The Manifestation of Sympathy.
>
>How delightfully unexpected.
>
>Babylon 5: The Mystery of Serendipity.
Then again - I might have been lying to keep in your good books.
Babylon 5: The Mendacity of Sycophants.
Paul Richardson
"John Duffey" <jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:4c81318b...@freeuk.com...
--
Paul R
Overworked of Borg, you will be assimilated when I can get around to it
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.581 / Virus Database: 368 - Release Date: 09/02/2004
Mary McK
"Pete Smith" <pete...@lethe.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a98a8f98...@news.plus.net...
> In article <jvvs20hdgkvqjv593...@4ax.com>,
> alex.m...@virgin.net says...
> > On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:51:08 -0000, Pete Smith
> > <pete...@lethe.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <402d0af...@news.plus.net>,
charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-
> > >PLEASE.co.uk says...
> >
> > >And can anyone shed any light on how to drown out the shrieks of a
baby?
> > >
Go to HMV or Woolworths and look for a DVD named Baby Mozart by the Baby
Einstein Company...seriously this stuff is like Prozac to babies! It
stopped my twins from screaming in colic dead! even when they were as young
as 2 mos old! It facinates them!
Good luck mate!
Mary McK
Alex
This is hardly sensible boys.
Babylon 5: The Marking of Silliness.
Alex
Alex
Alex
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:02:00 +0000, Iain Clark
><iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:08:36 -0000, "Simon Jones"
>><tarnyy...@csb-digital.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"EvilBill" <evilbillCOLL...@lineone.net> wrote in message
>>>news:c0ggvp$16qmk7$1...@ID-160726.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>>> In the same way that people use 'should of' instead of
>>>> 'should have' nowadays (grrrr).
>>>
>>>Speak for yourself.
>>>
>>It *really* irritates me when people use "could of" and "should of".
>
>I hate "Amanda Tapping off of Stargate", if you see what I mean.
Whst you mean is "I should have Amanda Tapping off Stargate" or
possibly "I should have it off with Amanda Tapping of Stargate"
Alex
Charlie Pearce
wrote:
Have you been watching Scrapheap Challenge: The Scrappy Races?
Captains of Devon teams appear to be exempt from all rules ;-)
Babylon 5: The Mutation of Scrapheap
John Duffey
> Whst you mean is "I should have Amanda Tapping off Stargate"
> or possibly "I should have it off with Amanda Tapping of
> Stargate"
For some reason, each time myself has seen "Amanda Tapping" I've
read "Amanda Fapping".
Curiously, the above two times I typed "Amanda" I actually
mistyped it as "Amazing" before spotting it. Even then, when I
wrote Amanda for the third type I began to mistype it.
Astonishing.
Must be a Freudian clit.
Er.
Slip.
John
--
The Arcane Chas
serious contemplation, Alex <alex.m...@virgin.net> put finger to
keyboard and produced the following;
>On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 16:28:33 +0000, The Arcane Chas
><Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <c0o0lc$19jg4l$1...@ID-109455.news.uni-berlin.de>, but only
>>after serious contemplation, Steve Brooks <IDontHave...@hotmail.co
>>m> put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
>>>The Arcane Chas wrote:
>>>> Steve Brooks put finger to keyboard and produced the following;
>>>>> The Arcane Chas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Babylon 5: The Mistake of Steve. ;-}
>>>>>
>>>>> That should be mistakes - It's a very long list.
>>>>
>>>> I know that this is out of character but I was being kind.
>>>>
>>>> Babylon 5: The Manifestation of Sympathy.
>>>
>>>How delightfully unexpected.
>>>
>>>Babylon 5: The Mystery of Serendipity.
>>
>>Then again - I might have been lying to keep in your good books.
>>
>>Babylon 5: The Mendacity of Sycophants.
>
>This is hardly sensible boys.
>
>Babylon 5: The Marking of Silliness.
Agreed - perhaps we should give it a rest.
Babylon 5: The Moratorium on Stupidity.
Paul Richardson
"The Arcane Chas" <Ch...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lU1sTUAm...@the-arcane.demon.co.uk...
Babylon 5: The Maximisation of Stupidity
Alex
Babylon 5: The Masterbation over Stargate?
Alex
John Duffey
I feel sorry for the poor bastards at the other end..
John
--
Pete Smith
> In article <MPG.1a99975d9...@news.plus.net>, Pete
> Smith <pete...@lethe.org.uk> wrote:
> > It's likely to be 12-18 year old single malt,
>
> 12's way too young for me.
>
> 16-18 year olds are just fine.
>
> I take it "malt" is another word for "girl"?
>
> > and a double barrel, pump action combat shotgun in the other.
>
> Can you get double barrel pump action guns?
>
> Seems a bit silly to me.
>
> Double barrel = fire one barrel and there's still a round in the
> other.
Or fire both barrels at once.
I've seen one of these puppies at work. Must have had full choke on both
barrels, and _minced_ a target at some distance.
I'd hate to think of the recoil of one of these though!
>
> Pump action = fire one round and another one's loaded when the
> pump is pumped?
Indeed.
You can also get auto-loaders, working on the same principle as an automatic
cartridge weapon, where the expanding gases give you the pump automatically.
Simon Jones
"Iain Clark" <iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote in message
news:jo7q20h07rfgi2ptq...@4ax.com...
> >> In the same way that people use 'should of' instead of
> >> 'should have' nowadays (grrrr).
> >
> >Speak for yourself.
> >
> It *really* irritates me when people use "could of" and "should of".
Yes, me too.
smj
VinceH (real address)
http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/my+%28of+me%29
Myself
Pronoun
3. used instead of 'I' or 'me'
- My husband and myself were delighted with the gift.
- They very kindly invited my sister and myself to the
inaugeration.
The first uses it to replace I - so if it's trimmed
down to just one person, it becomes "I was...", so
doesn't apply, since you specified "me".
The second, however, if trimmed down is "...invited me
to..." and in the trimmed down version using "myself"
makes no sense - so it seems to stick a finger up at
your explanation *and* say "ya boo sux" for good
measure.
Given that the reference given on that page is
Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary (c) Cambridge
Univeristy Press 2003, I'll take its word over you
guys (especially cunts like John) any day :-p
VinceH
--
VinceH can be found in the vicinity of http://www.vinceh.com
Soft Rock Software can be found around http://www.softrock.co.uk
WebChange2 for RISC OS & Windows is at http://www.webchange.co.uk
John Duffey
> Myself
[Wordectomy]
> Given that the reference given on that page is
> Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary (c) Cambridge
> Univeristy Press 2003, I'll take its word over you
> guys (especially cunts like John) any day :-p
Right. Let's take the other examples off this page.
> > I've bought myself a new coat.
Perfectly acceptable. "I've bought a new coat" is not sufficient
to convey the meaning; you could have bought said coat for
anyone.
> > I caught sight of myself in the mirror
Also acceptable, thouugh "I glimpsed my reflection in the
mirror" would be more accurate and apt.
> > Yes, I thought to myself, it's time to take a holiday
Inappropriate.
Who else do you think to?
> > I myself don't like a heavy meal at lunchtime.
Remove "myself" and the sentence still parses perfectly well.
The word is superfluous.
> > I had to do the whole job by myself
Acceptable.
> > I live by myself
Acceptable.
> > I never get an hour to myself
Acceptable.
> > My husband and myself were delighted with the gift
Inappropriate.
"My husband and I".
> > They very kindly invited my sister and myself to the
> > inauguration.
Inappropriate.
My sister and I. If the sentence did not have "to the
inauguration", then "My sister and me" would be best.
John, who, cunt or not, is right.
--
Alex
Correct on both counts.
General rule is, if me or I works, use them. Try changing the person
in the sentence.
Examples.
"They very kindly invited his sister and himself to the inuaguration"
"He himself doesn't like a heavy meal at lunchtime."
Both clearly complete arsewash.
Alex
VinceH (real address)
Alex <alex.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 12:05:01 +0000 (GMT), John Duffey
> <jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
[One reply to two to save time]
> >> Given that the reference given on that page is
> >> Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary (c) Cambridge
> >> Univeristy Press 2003, I'll take its word over you
> >> guys (especially cunts like John) any day :-p
> >Right. Let's take the other examples off this page.
If you like, though I don't see the point since they
weren't related to the specific point being
discussed...
> >> > I've bought myself a new coat.
> >Perfectly acceptable. "I've bought a new coat" is not
> >sufficient to convey the meaning; you could have bought said
> >coat for anyone.
You don't actually /need/ to say who it's for, though
it is polite English to do so. (I don't know if
"polite English" is a real thing or if I've just made
it up...)
> >> > I caught sight of myself in the mirror
> >Also acceptable, thouugh "I glimpsed my reflection in the
> >mirror" would be more accurate and apt.
No, it's just another way of saying the same thing.
Much literature would be very stale and repetitive if
it weren't for such flexibility.
> >> > Yes, I thought to myself, it's time to take a holiday
> >Inappropriate.
> >Who else do you think to?
Unnecessary would seem to me to be a more appropriate
word than inappropriate - but just because something
isn't necessary doesn't mean it shouldn't be done (or
in this case said^w written).
> >> > I myself don't like a heavy meal at lunchtime.
> >Remove "myself" and the sentence still parses perfectly well.
> >The word is superfluous.
You should consider reading the context of that example
- the word myself is used to add emphasize and as such
is perfectly acceptable.
> >> > I had to do the whole job by myself
> >Acceptable.
> >> > I live by myself
> >Acceptable.
> >> > I never get an hour to myself
> >Acceptable.
> >> > My husband and myself were delighted with the gift
> >Inappropriate.
> >"My husband and I".
As I said, that page cites a publication from Cambridge
University Press as its reference. You can, I assume,
provide a better reference for your assertion that
Cambridge is wrong?
> >> > They very kindly invited my sister and myself to the
> >> > inauguration.
> >Inappropriate.
> >My sister and I. If the sentence did not have "to the
> >inauguration", then "My sister and me" would be best.
Actually, "myself" replaces "me" there - to use the
very explanation that others used to counter the use of
"myself" which started this subthread, drop the sister:
"They very kindly invited I to the inauguration."
Oops.
> >John, who, cunt or not, is right.
> Correct on both counts.
No, he's right about cunt, but wrong about right.
> General rule is, if me or I works, use them. Try changing the
> person in the sentence.
> Examples.
> "They very kindly invited his sister and himself to the
> inuaguration"
> "He himself doesn't like a heavy meal at lunchtime."
> Both clearly complete arsewash.
Again, the latter is being used as emphasis. (I assume,
then, that you didn't read the page I quoted and just
read the examples as posted by John?).
As for the former, that's complete arsewash for other
reasons (only one of which is the mis-spelling of
inauguration :-p he says, ignoring his own mis-spelling
of University earlier in the thread ;-)
As I said previously, for the specific use of the word
which started this discussion, I accept that I *could*
be wrong - but thus far the only reference I've seen
which even comes close to being authoritative comes
from Cambridge University Press and that *supports* my
understanding of the way the word "myself" can be used.
The only arguments I've seen so far which contradicts
that are a small number of people here who have said
"no, it's wrong because..." and given a plausible
sounding explanation (even though no references are
cited) and John who has basically said "it's wrong"
and not even /tried/ to back up his point.
If someone points me in the direction of something as
authoritative as Cambridge which supports the argument
against the word, then fine - but an unsubstantiated
claim that I'm wrong just won't wash.
Charlie Pearce
<sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
>http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/my+%28of+me%29
>
>Myself
>
>Pronoun
>
>3. used instead of 'I' or 'me'
>
>- My husband and myself were delighted with the gift.
Should read "My husband and I".
>- They very kindly invited my sister and myself to the
> inaugeration.
Should read "my sister and me".
Inwhateration??
>The first uses it to replace I - so if it's trimmed
>down to just one person, it becomes "I was...", so
>doesn't apply, since you specified "me".
Can you share the rules of whatever little game you're playing? I
can't even decipher that sentence to begin to work out where you're
wrong!
>The second, however, if trimmed down is "...invited me
>to..." and in the trimmed down version using "myself"
>makes no sense - so it seems to stick a finger up at
>your explanation *and* say "ya boo sux" for good
>measure.
???
>Given that the reference given on that page is
>Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary (c) Cambridge
>Univeristy Press 2003, I'll take its word over you
>guys (especially cunts like John) any day :-p
Cambridge University Press print thousands of publications a year - do
you implicitly trust the content of each and every one?
Since you seem to like using Internet references, here are a few more
to suck on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_with_frequent_misuse
http://www.roomours.co.uk/ryder2.htm
http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/coffeetalk/028.html
http://www.lssu.edu/banished/archive/1991.php
http://www.msu.edu/~sheppar7/r_pronouns/introduction.htm
Babylon 5: The Modicum of Sources
John Duffey
<charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote:
> Cambridge University Press print thousands of publications a
> year - do you implicitly trust the content of each and every
> one?
A point I was specifically keeping as my trump card.
The University Press is run mostly independently from the
university and almost assuredly, books such as "Cambridge
Advanced Learner's Dictionary" will be subject to editorial
review only, rather than any form of academic scrutiny.
In fact, looking at Amazon
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521531063/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/026-0007109-0438822) we find it's a publication for
people doing ESL / EFL exams. For those not in the know that
means "English as a Second Language" and "English as a Foreign
Language". The book is primarily designed to give a
sufficient grounding in the English language to someone who
doesn't already speak it. The aim will not be to provide
authoritative definitions and uses of words to a natural English
speaker.
A very useful book to have around is Bill Bryson's "Troublesome
Words". This is indeed the source of my comments in this thread.
The ISBN is 0-141-00135-6, and the Amazon purchasing page is
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0767910435/ref=sr_aps_books_1_2/026-0007109-0438822 .
John
--
VinceH (real address)
Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk>
wrote:
> address)" <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> >http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/my+%28of+me%29
[...]
> Inwhateration??
Inaugeration. It's called a speelink mistook and should
have been inauguration.
> >The first uses it to replace I - so if it's trimmed
> >down to just one person, it becomes "I was...", so
> >doesn't apply, since you specified "me".
> Can you share the rules of whatever little game you're
> playing? I can't even decipher that sentence to begin to work
> out where you're wrong!
Well, the shortcut is that I was saying that in the
referenced example, "My husband and myself" is being
used instead of "My husband and I" - which you sort of
agree with because you said it /should/ be "My husband
and I".
The long version:
"The first"
- referring to the first of the two example sentences
I'd quoted.
"uses it"
- referring to the word under discussion ("myself").
"to replace I"
- ie, the word "myself" has replaced the word "I".
"so if it's"
- this time referring to the example.
"trimmed down to just one person,"
- what Arthur said, but using words to explain the
process rather than just an example.
('If you would write
"Please contact either the Help Desk or myself"
then would you write
"Please contact myself"
or would you write
"Please contact me" ?'
In that example, he seems to be suggesting the
sentence have the third party removed leaving just
the speaker (or writer) - hence "trimmed down
[reduced] to just one person.)
"it becomes 'I was'"
- ah, fuck it. I'm bored now.
Basically, Arthur's example specifically used the word
"me" - as quoted above. The first example on the page I
mentioned uses "myself" to replace "I" so I've said,
"okay, that doesn't match your example, so let's not
worry about it and move on to the next example..."
Which neatly follows:
> >The second, however, if trimmed down is "...invited me
> >to..." and in the trimmed down version using "myself"
> >makes no sense - so it seems to stick a finger up at
> >your explanation *and* say "ya boo sux" for good
> >measure.
> ???
"The second" refers to the second example as quoted
from the page, "trimmed down" blah blah blah one person
blah blah blah in this example it's using "myself"
instead of "me" and thus matches Arthur's example.
With me so far? No? Well I don't give a fuck, so I'll
carry on anyway:
Using Arthur's argument ("Would you write...") we get
"They invited myself" versus "They invited me" -
Arthur's argument would suggest, therefore, that
"myself" is wrong, but that page[1] says it's correct
in the original sentence.
[1] Which is actually the same page as:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=52714&dict=CALD
So that page is, paraphrased, giving Arthur's
explanation the finger.
> >Given that the reference given on that page is
> >Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary (c) Cambridge
> >Univeristy Press 2003, I'll take its word over you
> >guys (especially cunts like John) any day :-p
> Cambridge University Press print thousands of publications a
> year - do you implicitly trust the content of each and every
> one?
Well, I do have this rather strange notion that an
educational publication from an entity such as Cambridge
University Press probably does have some element of
trustworthiness to it. Is that so wrong of me?
Especially when you consider that, until now, the only
opposition has been a few posters on a usenet newsgroup.
As a general rule of thumb, if people on a usenet
newsgroup say it's so, that doesn't mean it is.
(Especially if those people are the sort of no-hopers
who hang out on a group such as this - I mean, come on,
we watch shit about weird googly eyed aliens and
bollocks like that!)
Same applies to web pages, in general - the one I cited
*could* be wrong, the book /it/ cited could be wrong,
when the information was put online someone could have
made an almighty cock up and in the book it might
actually say "don't do this..." - who knows - but
ATEOTD we have to at some point say "okay, this is what
I'll accept until something better comes along..." -
which is what I had done.
Forgetting the actual topic of the argument and look at
it this way:
* A couple of usenet bods gave a fairly plausible
explanation - but they're just a couple of ordinary
Joes who have no notable credentials that *I'm*
aware of.
* Another poster used the somewhat unconvincing
argument "Happy to look like a tit, are you?"
* A website disagrees with them, citing a publication
from Cambridge University Press.
Now me, I'd be inclined to go by what the website says
every single time.
If the posters had cited decent references instead of
none at all, or if the website instead cited
"Some-Fucker-Or-Organisation-You've-Never-Heard=Of's
Big Book of Lingo Type Shit" then I'd have been more
inclined to believe the posters to be right.
> Since you seem to like using Internet references,
It's not what I /like/ but what I could find, quickly[2]
and easily, and which everyone here could look at.
If I'd gone to a bloody bookshop and bought a book on
the subject - possibly the one cited on that page, who
knows - and then said "look, here's the argument
against what you said" the only way anyone could check
that I wasn't making it up on the spot would be to get
hold of the same book and see if it indeed said what I
claimed.
That's the handy thing about this internet thingy: I
can point to something and say "look" and anyone who so
chooses can click on the sodding link and say "oh yeah"
or "no, that's wrong because..."
That minor point aside, though...
> here are a few more to suck on:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_with_frequent_misuse
I don't trust the authoritative nature of anything
published in a Wiki, unless decent references are given
- and even then it'd leave a big question mark in my
mind.
However, note the introductory text at the start which
largely reads as a sort of disclaimer - and tying in
with that, it uses the terms "standard" and "non
standard" instead of, oooh, say, "right" and "wrong" or
"correct" and "incorrect".
> http://www.roomours.co.uk/ryder2.htm
Hmmm... "If you really<splodge>ow people how stupid you
are" ?
<clicks>
Ah, the first sentence is using the John school of
arguing. The remainder (which was readable anyway, the
splodge only affected the first sentence) is plausible
- much like yours and Arthur's arguments.
But the site does appear to be selling a service, and
not actually an educational research. Granted the
service is that of a professional writer, which counts
in its favour, I suppose.
It's a shame that while on some pages he talks about
"good web copy" and doesn't extend that into "good web
design" - the site doesn't degrade well, which is why I
couldn't read the first sentence.
> http://www.columbiaseminary.edu/coffeetalk/028.html
Now *that* was more like it - given the writer's
background and education, I find him very credible.
[snip]
I can't be arsed to look at the other two.
What I haven't said is that /after/ making my previous
post I looked further, and the only other pages I found
either disagreed with the first page I found, or didn't
actually discuss that usage of the word "myself" - I
found none which agreed with it - so I've /already/
concluded that my understanding was wrong.
Now, I wonder how many people will actually get this
far and realise I'd said that?
(ATEOTD I failed English, so I'm damned well fucking
allowed to get it wrong - but at least I tried
researching and substantiating my argument.)
My argument herein is focused more on the methods used
to argue the point, rather than to argue the point
itself.
Steve Brooks
Speaking for myself - That was far too long.
I'm afraid myself couldn't make it all the way to the end.
--
SB
The Arcane Chas
contemplation, VinceH (real address) <sp...@softrock.co.uk> put finger to
keyboard and produced the following;
>What I haven't said is that /after/ making my previous
>post I looked further, and the only other pages I found
>either disagreed with the first page I found, or didn't
>actually discuss that usage of the word "myself" - I
>found none which agreed with it - so I've /already/
>concluded that my understanding was wrong.
>
>Now, I wonder how many people will actually get this
>far and realise I'd said that?
I have - and I'm impressed.
(I'm also glad that I didn't jump in earlier - you already had enough
people on your case). :-}
Alex
Babylon 5: Tried myself, oh Shit.
Alex
John Duffey
VinceH (real address) <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> Now, I wonder how many people will actually get this
> far and realise I'd said that?
Probably quite a number.
Frequently, your writing style amuses me.น This post was no
exception.
> (ATEOTD I failed English, so I'm damned well fucking
> allowed to get it wrong - but at least I tried
> researching and substantiating my argument.)
FYI, I took English Literature at A Level. Well, that's not
strictly true. I went to the classes for a year and a half
before buggering off to Canterbury.
I did do English Language at GCSE, obtaining a "B" grade.
> My argument herein is focused more on the methods used
> to argue the point, rather than to argue the point
> itself.
If you're referring to my "Happy to make yourself look like a
tit, are you?" comment, let it be noted that I had already cited
my source (Bill Bryson's "Troublesome Words") in message
<4c800ee0...@freeuk.com>, which is in fact the message to
which you replied "My understanding is that both are valid, but
my personal choice would be to use 'myself'.".
John
น I realise that this may sound like a disparaging comment,
however it's not meant to be one. I find the pace and metre of
your writing to be highly entertaining.
--
Alex
I just wanted an excuse to call John a cunt, while agreeing with him.
Babylon 5: The lack of inspiration on this one.
Alex
John Duffey
<alex.m...@virgin.net> wrote:
> I just wanted an excuse to call John a cunt, while agreeing
> with him.
<Accent type="60's American Hippy">
Hey man! You don't need an excuse!
</accent>
John
--
Alex
I know, but I'm naturally reticent.
Alex
Paul Richardson
"Alex" <alex.m...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:c5m73056ii1jnctna...@4ax.com...
Charlie Pearce
<jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>š I realise that this may sound like a disparaging comment,
>however it's not meant to be one. I find the pace and metre of
>your writing to be highly entertaining.
Methinks you mean "meter" ;-)
Babylon 5: The Mind of Spite
Charlie Pearce
<sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4033a73...@news.plus.net>,
> Charlie Pearce <charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 09:23:53 +0000 (GMT), "VinceH (real
>> address)" <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >http://www.freesearch.co.uk/dictionary/my+%28of+me%29
>
>[...]
>
>> Inwhateration??
>
>Inaugeration. It's called a speelink mistook and should
>have been inauguration.
>
>> >The first uses it to replace I - so if it's trimmed
>> >down to just one person, it becomes "I was...", so
>> >doesn't apply, since you specified "me".
>
>> Can you share the rules of whatever little game you're
>> playing? I can't even decipher that sentence to begin to work
>> out where you're wrong!
>
>Well, the shortcut is that I was saying that in the
>referenced example, "My husband and myself" is being
>used instead of "My husband and I" - which you sort of
>agree with because you said it /should/ be "My husband
>and I".
Yes, what I couldn't work out for the life of me was whether or not
you were suggesting that it was *correctly* being used instead. If
you were, then you were at best misguided, at worst a total arse.
Fair enough, in which case you've neatly moved on from an incorrect
phrase, which remains incorrect.
>Which neatly follows:
>
>> >The second, however, if trimmed down is "...invited me
>> >to..." and in the trimmed down version using "myself"
>> >makes no sense - so it seems to stick a finger up at
>> >your explanation *and* say "ya boo sux" for good
>> >measure.
>
>> ???
>
>"The second" refers to the second example as quoted
>from the page, "trimmed down" blah blah blah one person
>blah blah blah in this example it's using "myself"
>instead of "me" and thus matches Arthur's example.
>
>With me so far? No? Well I don't give a fuck, so I'll
>carry on anyway:
>
>Using Arthur's argument ("Would you write...") we get
>"They invited myself" versus "They invited me" -
>Arthur's argument would suggest, therefore, that
>"myself" is wrong, but that page[1] says it's correct
>in the original sentence.
That page is wrong. I don't give two hairy-arsed badgers or a bag of
mushrooms where it takes its information from, but it's still wrong.
>[1] Which is actually the same page as:
>
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=52714&dict=CALD
>
>So that page is, paraphrased, giving Arthur's
>explanation the finger.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
>> >Given that the reference given on that page is
>> >Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary (c) Cambridge
>> >Univeristy Press 2003, I'll take its word over you
>> >guys (especially cunts like John) any day :-p
>
>> Cambridge University Press print thousands of publications a
>> year - do you implicitly trust the content of each and every
>> one?
>
>Well, I do have this rather strange notion that an
>educational publication from an entity such as Cambridge
>University Press probably does have some element of
>trustworthiness to it. Is that so wrong of me?
Wrong and touchingly naive.
>Especially when you consider that, until now, the only
>opposition has been a few posters on a usenet newsgroup.
>As a general rule of thumb, if people on a usenet
>newsgroup say it's so, that doesn't mean it is.
The NG people saying it's so doesn't mean it is, but in this case the
NG people are saying it's so because they know it is.
>(Especially if those people are the sort of no-hopers
>who hang out on a group such as this - I mean, come on,
>we watch shit about weird googly eyed aliens and
>bollocks like that!)
I've never watched Pop Idol and I never intend to.
>Same applies to web pages, in general - the one I cited
>*could* be wrong, the book /it/ cited could be wrong,
>when the information was put online someone could have
>made an almighty cock up and in the book it might
>actually say "don't do this..." - who knows - but
>ATEOTD we have to at some point say "okay, this is what
>I'll accept until something better comes along..." -
>which is what I had done.
>
>Forgetting the actual topic of the argument and look at
>it this way:
Argument? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to show you the
error of your ways ;-)
>* A couple of usenet bods gave a fairly plausible
> explanation - but they're just a couple of ordinary
> Joes who have no notable credentials that *I'm*
> aware of.
>
>* Another poster used the somewhat unconvincing
> argument "Happy to look like a tit, are you?"
Yes, but that was John, and he's a self-confessed cunt.
>* A website disagrees with them, citing a publication
> from Cambridge University Press.
You seem to be in a great deal of awe of this particular publisher.
Would you be so vehement if the book in question had been published by
Sweet and Maxwell, Trinity Mirror or Fuckstain Retard Productions?
>Now me, I'd be inclined to go by what the website says
>every single time.
Now I'm not sure if you're touchingly naive or just pigheadedly
obstinate.
That is a good thing. I feel the urge to say "I am happy for you",
but as I intimated at the start of this already-convoluted thread, I'm
not sure that I would be fully respecting the English language, so
instead I shall point out that I am happy that we have concluded this
exploration of syntax to everybody's satisfaction.
>Now, I wonder how many people will actually get this
>far and realise I'd said that?
A good number, I imagine.
Babylon 5: This Merlot... is really starting to affect me now.
John Duffey
<charlie...@eidosnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> wrote:
> >š I realise that this may sound like a disparaging comment,
> >however it's not meant to be one. I find the pace and metre
> >of your writing to be highly entertaining.
> Methinks you mean "meter" ;-)
Youthinks incorrectly, Mr. Pearce.
According to the dictionary I have open in front of me:-
Metre (US. Meter) n. 1.a The measured rhythm characteristic of
verse. b. A specified rhythmic pattern of verse, usually
determined by the number and kinds of metric units in a typical
line.
Usage: British English uses the spelling 'metre' for the senses
'rhythm' and 'unit of length', but 'meter' for any of the
instruments which measure (gas meter, speedometer and so on) and
for types of poetic line (Pentameter, for example). American
English uses the spelling "Meter" in all senses.
So, I can talk until I'm blue in the face about the metre of
VinceH's typings. If I noticed there were five syllables per
line of his works then I would say the metre of his work was
best described as a pentameter structure. Unless of course I
were American.
John
--
VinceH (real address)
> Speaking for myself - That was far too long.
Which sounds to me like you read the end and decided
to make a humorous comment about the length, because
I had remarked on it. And that would have been funny.
> I'm afraid myself couldn't make it all the way to the end.
Which sounds like you didn't. So it isn't.
VinceH (real address)
John Duffey <jdu...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> In article <4c82d5a...@softrock.co.uk>,
> VinceH (real address) <sp...@softrock.co.uk> wrote:
> > Now, I wonder how many people will actually get this
> > far and realise I'd said that?
> Probably quite a number.
> Frequently, your writing style amuses me.น This post was no
> exception.
70% of the time it's what I'm trying to do. (Not you
personally, though, obviously...)
20% of the time I forget to switch to a more serious
mode so engage in serious shit in a non-serious
stylee.
9% of the time it's important that I use a serious
tone, but forget until I'm all but finished, end up
deleting everything I've written and starting again
from scratch.
1% of the time I remember that 95% of all statistics
are a load of bollocks.
Which explains why there's also a couple of percent
of the time when I'm not being serious, but someone
thinks I am and reacts in an unexpected way - like
leaving a newsgroup, for example.
[...]
> > My argument herein is focused more on the methods used
> > to argue the point, rather than to argue the point
> > itself.
> If you're referring to my "Happy to make yourself look like a
> tit, are you?" comment, let it be noted that I had already
> cited my source (Bill Bryson's "Troublesome Words")
You did indeed. That would be some bloke I've never
heard of - but more importantly, it's a source that
isn't easy to verify without a little more effort
than it's worth. (Or, to save effort, money). That's
why I opted to look for something online - anyone
can click a link; it's effortless and, depending on
the clicker's method of connection, can be quite
cheap.
And because I can't be arsed to reply to Charlie:
what you "know" is fucking irrelevant - from where I
sit it's what you either claim to, or think you know.
It's a fairly reputable publisher versus a bloke who
seems to ask increasingly bizarre questions, someone
who goes by the 'nym A.Buse, and a cunt. Get real,
man - obviously the publisher sounds more credible.
And I wasn't talking about fucking Pop Idol, I was
talking about I'm A Celebate Titty, Get Me Out Of
Here.
But I've just remembered they weren't eyes, so I can
understand the confusion.
[...]
> น I realise that this may sound like a disparaging comment,
> however it's not meant to be one. I find the pace and metre of
> your writing to be highly entertaining.
Not taken as one. Given that it's what I generally try
to do, it's nice to find out every once in a while
that I succeed.
The best reply I've ever had in that context was
"Are you now or have you ever been Douglas Adams?".
All of which tells me there's hope for Barney Hope.