How many so's?

[Mr Macaw]

"Within half an hour or so"
What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two so's and say 1.5 hours?

Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the correct way to give a plural of the word so for example?

--
Quando omni Flunkus Moritati - When all else fails, play dead.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:14:00 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:

> "Within half an hour or so"
> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
> Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two so's and say 1.5 hours?
>
> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the correct way to give a plural of the word so for example?

As you have it.

[Mr Macaw]

Really? I've seen so many people told off for that. With most words you just add S, like one Peter, two Peters. Two Peter's would provoke "Peter owns two of what?"

--
Flabbergasted (adj.), appalled over how much weight you have gained.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:25:03 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:19:21 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:14:00 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >
> >> "Within half an hour or so"
> >> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
> >> Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two so's and say 1.5 hours?
> >>
> >> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the correct way to give a plural of the word so for example?
> >
> > As you have it.
>
> Really? I've seen so many people told off for that. With most words you just add S, like one Peter, two Peters. Two Peter's would provoke "Peter owns two of what?"

That is not "two occurrences of the word 'Peter'." That's referring to two
people named Peter.

[Mr Macaw]

An apostrophe (as far as I'm concerned) is possessive. "Peter's football" - the football belongs to Peter. "Two Peter's football" - rather clumsy, but sounds like a football belonging to two people named Peter, similar to John and Bill's football.

--
Each Christmas, people in the UK buy enough wrapping paper to gift wrap Guernsey.

[Mr Macaw]

This website disagrees, never use 's to make something plural: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/apostrophes-and-plurals

[Whiskers]

On 2016-04-16, Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> "Within half an hour or so" What is the maximum number of so's you can
> have? Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two so's
> and say 1.5 hours?

Only one "so". It means approximation - perhaps a bit more, perhaps a
bit less - not a multiple of anything.

> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the correct
> way to give a plural of the word so for example?

For usenet and other places where typefaces can't be specified try
putting the word in upper case letters and the s as lower case, or
putting the word inside quotes and the s outside the quotes - like this:
SOs or "so"s. Neither is entirely satisfactory so ideally re-word your
question, eg "how many times can I repeat the word 'so' in this
expression?"


--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Mr Macaw]

I see, thanks.

--
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the works of Shakespeare.
Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

[grabber]

All unnecessary. Stick with so's.

[Mr Macaw]

Looks more like a missing letter like that: "So's you gonna go fishing?"

--
If a cat joined the Red Cross, would it become a First-Aid Kit?

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:13:51 +0100, Mr Macaw wrote:

> "Within half an hour or so"
> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
> Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two so's and say
> 1.5 hours?
>
> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the correct
> way to give a plural of the word so for example?

For all the foofaraw generated, the answer is that "so's" is correct.

The general rule is to use the apostrophe wherever omitting it is likely
to cause confusion. Thus, one says "The several Smiths [Smith family
members] in the study were unrelated," but "Mind your p's and q's."

[Peter T. Daniels]

I bet it doesn't envision linguistic discussions.

[RH Draney]

On 4/16/2016 5:33 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:13:51 +0100, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>
>> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the correct
>> way to give a plural of the word so for example?
>
> For all the foofaraw generated, the answer is that "so's" is correct.

As spelled out in the HBJ grammar guide we used back in school...words,
letters, numbers *as* words, letters, numbers form the plural by adding
's....

> The general rule is to use the apostrophe wherever omitting it is likely
> to cause confusion. Thus, one says "The several Smiths [Smith family
> members] in the study were unrelated," but "Mind your p's and q's."

Omitting the apostrophe allows such bewildering sentences as:

His handwriting is atrocious! He never dots his is, and all his us
look like as.

(As the sentences refers to the written form, it is not possible simply
to use uppercase for the letters mentioned)....r

[Whiskers]

Those are sentences that work in spoken English but not in writing.

[grabber]

They work for me. How does the Smiths one not work for you - or are you
referring to some different sentences.

I tend to think it is useful to be able to render spoken English in
writing, and if that calls for some apostrophes I don't see why that
matters.

[Dingbat]

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 1:44:00 AM UTC+5:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
> "Within half an hour or so"
> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?

Three. "So so so far."

[Whiskers]

On 2016-04-17, grabber <g...@bb.er> wrote:
> On 4/17/2016 1:32 PM, Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2016-04-17, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:13:51 +0100, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Within half an hour or so" What is the maximum number of so's you
>>>> can have? Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two
>>>> so's and say 1.5 hours?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the
>>>> correct way to give a plural of the word so for example?
>>>
>>> For all the foofaraw generated, the answer is that "so's" is correct.
>>>
>>> The general rule is to use the apostrophe wherever omitting it is
>>> likely to cause confusion. Thus, one says "The several Smiths [Smith
>>> family members] in the study were unrelated," but "Mind your p's and
>>> q's."
>>
>> Those are sentences that work in spoken English but not in writing.
>
> They work for me. How does the Smiths one not work for you - or are you
> referring to some different sentences.

How is a [ pronounced? The tricky one to render in writing is the one
about peas and cues.

> I tend to think it is useful to be able to render spoken English in
> writing, and if that calls for some apostrophes I don't see why that
> matters.

IPA is the tool for representing speech in writing. Spoken and written
English are different languages.

[David Kleinecke]

In practice nobody uses IPA for texts - as opposed to phonology. A
phonemic representation is used.

Spoken versus written English is a difference in register - hardly
different languages.

[Mr Macaw]

Well we were always told off at school if we used an apostrophe in that manner. It can already mean "missing letter" and "possessive". Adding a third meaning is going to cause confusion.

--
U2's on-tour sound system weighs 30 tons.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 17:19:08 +0100, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:

> On 2016-04-17, grabber <g...@bb.er> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2016 1:32 PM, Whiskers wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-17, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:13:51 +0100, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Within half an hour or so" What is the maximum number of so's you
>>>>> can have? Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two
>>>>> so's and say 1.5 hours?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the
>>>>> correct way to give a plural of the word so for example?
>>>>
>>>> For all the foofaraw generated, the answer is that "so's" is correct.
>>>>
>>>> The general rule is to use the apostrophe wherever omitting it is
>>>> likely to cause confusion. Thus, one says "The several Smiths [Smith
>>>> family members] in the study were unrelated," but "Mind your p's and
>>>> q's."
>>>
>>> Those are sentences that work in spoken English but not in writing.
>>
>> They work for me. How does the Smiths one not work for you - or are you
>> referring to some different sentences.
>
> How is a [ pronounced?

You say the part in brackets more quietly and/or a deeper voice. Surely you've come across this before?

> The tricky one to render in writing is the one about peas and cues.

I'd always write Ps and Qs.

--
"The Ten Commandments contain 297 words.
The Bill of Rights is stated in 463 words.
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address contains 266 words.
A recent federal directive to regulate the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words." -- Atlanta Journal

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:25:01 +0100, Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 1:44:00 AM UTC+5:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> "Within half an hour or so"
>> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
>
> Three. "So so so far."

What are you referring to?

>> Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two so's and say 1.5 hours?
>>
>> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the correct way to give a plural of the word so for example?
>>
>> --
>> Quando omni Flunkus Moritati - When all else fails, play dead.
>
>

--
I go fishing; I catch nothing. I go to orgies; I catch everything.

[GordonD]

On 17/04/2016 18:23, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:25:01 +0100, Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 1:44:00 AM UTC+5:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> "Within half an hour or so"
>>> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
>>
>> Three. "So so so far."
>
> What are you referring to?

At a guess:

"How are things going?"
"So-so, so far..."

But you could add another one:

"How are things going?"
"Not bad, up until now."
"So, so-so so far?"
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[grabber]

On 4/17/2016 5:19 PM, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2016-04-17, grabber <g...@bb.er> wrote:
>> On 4/17/2016 1:32 PM, Whiskers wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-17, Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:13:51 +0100, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Within half an hour or so" What is the maximum number of so's you
>>>>> can have? Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two
>>>>> so's and say 1.5 hours?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the
>>>>> correct way to give a plural of the word so for example?
>>>>
>>>> For all the foofaraw generated, the answer is that "so's" is correct.
>>>>
>>>> The general rule is to use the apostrophe wherever omitting it is
>>>> likely to cause confusion. Thus, one says "The several Smiths [Smith
>>>> family members] in the study were unrelated," but "Mind your p's and
>>>> q's."
>>>
>>> Those are sentences that work in spoken English but not in writing.
>>
>> They work for me. How does the Smiths one not work for you - or are you
>> referring to some different sentences.
>
> How is a [ pronounced?

Depends on the context. Punctuation is usually reflected in speech by
patterns of timing, intonation, pitch, tone etc.

> The tricky one to render in writing is the one
> about peas and cues.

Except it isn't, for anyone who accepts the normal conventions for the
use of apostrophes in plurals.

>> I tend to think it is useful to be able to render spoken English in
>> writing, and if that calls for some apostrophes I don't see why that
>> matters.
>
> IPA is the tool for representing speech in writing. >

Not usually, because we are usually more interested in representing the
words than the sounds. The same words delivered by different speakers
may have different phonetic representations, and a single phonetic
pattern can represent more than one string of words.

> Spoken and written
> English are different languages.

What David said.

[grabber]

On 4/17/2016 6:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 05:41:21 +0100, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/16/2016 5:33 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:13:51 +0100, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the correct
>>>> way to give a plural of the word so for example?
>>>
>>> For all the foofaraw generated, the answer is that "so's" is correct.
>>
>> As spelled out in the HBJ grammar guide we used back in school...words,
>> letters, numbers *as* words, letters, numbers form the plural by adding
>> 's....
>>
>>> The general rule is to use the apostrophe wherever omitting it is likely
>>> to cause confusion. Thus, one says "The several Smiths [Smith family
>>> members] in the study were unrelated," but "Mind your p's and q's."
>>
>> Omitting the apostrophe allows such bewildering sentences as:
>>
>> His handwriting is atrocious! He never dots his is, and all his us
>> look like as.
>>
>> (As the sentences refers to the written form, it is not possible simply
>> to use uppercase for the letters mentioned)....r
>
> Well we were always told off at school if we used an apostrophe in that
> manner.

Sometimes what is said by school teachers (or what the children think
they have heard) is a simplified version of reality.

> It can already mean "missing letter" and "possessive". Adding
> a third meaning is going to cause confusion.

English is full of homophones, homonyms and all kinds of possible
ambiguities, but we cope. I think it would be relatively hard to come up
with a natural example sentence where a pluralising apostrophe could be
plausibly be mistaken for something else.

[pensive hamster]

On Sunday, 17 April 2016 19:07:40 UTC+1, GordonD wrote:
> On 17/04/2016 18:23, Mr Macaw wrote:

> > On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:25:01 +0100, Dingbat wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 1:44:00 AM UTC+5:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >>> "Within half an hour or so"
> >>> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
> >>
> >> Three. "So so so far."
> >
> > What are you referring to?
>
> At a guess:
>
> "How are things going?"
> "So-so, so far..."
>
> But you could add another one:
>
> "How are things going?"
> "Not bad, up until now."
> "So, so-so so far?"

"So, insofar as things are going so-so, so far, do you anticipate
a time in the future when things will pick up so much that you will be
able to say that things are now going oh-so much better than just
so-so?

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 19:19:20 +0100, grabber <g...@bb.er> wrote:

> On 4/17/2016 6:03 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 05:41:21 +0100, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/16/2016 5:33 PM, Eric Walker wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:13:51 +0100, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the correct
>>>>> way to give a plural of the word so for example?
>>>>
>>>> For all the foofaraw generated, the answer is that "so's" is correct.
>>>
>>> As spelled out in the HBJ grammar guide we used back in school...words,
>>> letters, numbers *as* words, letters, numbers form the plural by adding
>>> 's....
>>>
>>>> The general rule is to use the apostrophe wherever omitting it is likely
>>>> to cause confusion. Thus, one says "The several Smiths [Smith family
>>>> members] in the study were unrelated," but "Mind your p's and q's."
>>>
>>> Omitting the apostrophe allows such bewildering sentences as:
>>>
>>> His handwriting is atrocious! He never dots his is, and all his us
>>> look like as.
>>>
>>> (As the sentences refers to the written form, it is not possible simply
>>> to use uppercase for the letters mentioned)....r
>>
>> Well we were always told off at school if we used an apostrophe in that
>> manner.
>
> Sometimes what is said by school teachers (or what the children think
> they have heard) is a simplified version of reality.

No, I'd say what teachers teach is a narrow subset of reality. Teachers are in general quite ignorant. Those who can, do, those who can't, teach.

>> It can already mean "missing letter" and "possessive". Adding
>> a third meaning is going to cause confusion.
>
> English is full of homophones, homonyms and all kinds of possible
> ambiguities, but we cope. I think it would be relatively hard to come up
> with a natural example sentence where a pluralising apostrophe could be
> plausibly be mistaken for something else.

It makes it harder to interpret when you have to stop and think what the apostrophe signifies.

--
What does a Polish woman do after she sucks a cock?
Spits out the feathers.

[Janet]

> On Sunday, 17 April 2016 19:07:40 UTC+1, GordonD wrote:
> > On 17/04/2016 18:23, Mr Macaw wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:25:01 +0100, Dingbat wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 1:44:00 AM UTC+5:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
> > >>> "Within half an hour or so"
> > >>> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
> > >>
> > >> Three. "So so so far."
> > >
> > > What are you referring to?
> >
> > At a guess:
> >
> > "How are things going?"
> > "So-so, so far..."
> >
> > But you could add another one:
> >
> > "How are things going?"
> > "Not bad, up until now."
> > "So, so-so so far?"

"How's your dressmaking class?"
"not bad up until now"
"So, so-so sew so far?"

Janet

[Mr Macaw]

It's so much better just to say "fine thanks".

--
Eskimoes only have 4 words for snow, but 32 words for demonstrative pronouns (we only have this/that/these/those).

[Peter T. Daniels]

Once again: "At school," you were unlikely to be discussing linguistics.
However unfortunate that may be, it's the truth.

Didn't you even learn the expression about p's and q's?

[Mr Macaw]

I have no idea what you're talking about. In school we are taught to use proper English. Linguistics is the same.

> Didn't you even learn the expression about p's and q's?

Yes, what makes you think I didn't?

--
Computers are like air conditioners: They stop working when you open Windows.

[Dingbat]

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 10:53:16 PM UTC+5:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:25:01 +0100, Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 1:44:00 AM UTC+5:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >> "Within half an hour or so"
> >> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
> >
> > Three. "So so so far."
>
> What are you referring to?

The maximum number of consecutive instances of "so" that I've used in a sentence.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 21:33:22 +0100, Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 10:53:16 PM UTC+5:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:25:01 +0100, Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 1:44:00 AM UTC+5:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> >> "Within half an hour or so"
>> >> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
>> >
>> > Three. "So so so far."
>>
>> What are you referring to?
>
> The maximum number of consecutive instances of "so" that I've used in a sentence.

You failed to hyphenate so-so. Go to jail, move directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect £200.

--
If you walk into a nuclear power station with a pocket full of Brazil nuts, you will set off the radiation leak alarm, as Brazil nuts are radioative.

[RH Draney]

On 4/17/2016 12:02 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> Didn't you even learn the expression about p's and q's?

You mean pieds and culs, don't you?...don't want to be mixing up your
feet with your tail, now....r

[Mr Macaw]

The Americans can't tell the difference between a foot lover and a child molester.

--
Streakers beware: Your end is in sight!

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 22:48:15 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 22:35:54 +0100, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 4/17/2016 12:02 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>> Didn't you even learn the expression about p's and q's?
>>
>> You mean pieds and culs, don't you?...don't want to be mixing up your
>> feet with your tail, now....r
>
>The Americans can't tell the difference between a foot lover and a child molester.

More than that, I don't think most Americans even know what a
pedophile is.

[grabber]

Do you? Do you also find yourself stopping to wonder whether each letter
y you encounter is a consonant or a vowel?

[Mr Macaw]

Don't they indulge in that sort of thing?

--
Peter is listening to "Hollywood Undead - Turn Out The Lights"

[Mr Macaw]

No, that's subconscious if I know the word, otherwise yes I would.

--
The female gangbang world record is held by Lisa Sparks who had sex with 919 men on October 16, 2004 in Warsaw, Poland as part of the Third Annual World Gangbang Championship and Eroticon 2004

[Mack A. Damia]

Judging from news accounts, I am certain that they do, but I am
referring to the literal definition: An adult who is sexually
attracted to children.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 3:53:17 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:02:59 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > Once again: "At school," you were unlikely to be discussing linguistics.
> > However unfortunate that may be, it's the truth.

> I have no idea what you're talking about. In school we are taught to use proper English. Linguistics is the same.

Oh, jeez.

> > Didn't you even learn the expression about p's and q's?
>
> Yes, what makes you think I didn't?

You don't know how to spell it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Which movie won the Academy Award for Best Picture this year?

[Mack A. Damia]

Silly question, Daniels.

How many movies have been produced about World War II since 1939? And
people still don't know who the Allied or the Axis powers were

How many saw "Argo" and still don't know where Tehran is?

[Robert Bannister]

On 17/04/2016 4:46 am, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:35:48 +0100, Peter T. Daniels
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:25:03 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:19:21 +0100, Peter T. Daniels
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>
>>> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:14:00 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Within half an hour or so"
>>> >> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?

>>> >> Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two so's and
>>> say 1.5 hours?
>>> >>

>>> >> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the
>>> correct way to give a plural of the word so for example?
>>> >

>>> > As you have it.
>>>
>>> Really? I've seen so many people told off for that. With most
>>> words you just add S, like one Peter, two Peters. Two Peter's would
>>> provoke "Peter owns two of what?"
>>
>> That is not "two occurrences of the word 'Peter'." That's referring to
>> two
>> people named Peter.
>
> An apostrophe (as far as I'm concerned) is possessive. "Peter's
> football" - the football belongs to Peter. "Two Peter's football" -
> rather clumsy, but sounds like a football belonging to two people named
> Peter, similar to John and Bill's football.
>

So for you "it's" is possessive and means "its"?

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Robert Bannister]

On 17/04/2016 4:48 am, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:35:48 +0100, Peter T. Daniels
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:25:03 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:19:21 +0100, Peter T. Daniels
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 4:14:00 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Within half an hour or so"
>>> >> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
>>> >> Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two so's and
>>> say 1.5 hours?
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the
>>> correct way to give a plural of the word so for example?
>>> >
>>> > As you have it.
>>>
>>> Really? I've seen so many people told off for that. With most
>>> words you just add S, like one Peter, two Peters. Two Peter's would
>>> provoke "Peter owns two of what?"
>>
>> That is not "two occurrences of the word 'Peter'." That's referring to
>> two
>> people named Peter.
>

> This website disagrees, never use 's to make something plural:
> http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/apostrophes-and-plurals

A rule like that is fine for "quick and dirty" - it might work for child
or a beginner, but there are many occasions where a plain s won't work
as with lower case a, i and u, for example.

[Robert Bannister]

On 17/04/2016 8:33 am, Eric Walker wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 21:13:51 +0100, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>> "Within half an hour or so"
>> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
>> Does that mean no more than 1 hour? Or can you have two so's and say
>> 1.5 hours?
>>
>> Yes, yes, grocer;'s apostrophe. So next question, what is the correct
>> way to give a plural of the word so for example?
>

> For all the foofaraw generated, the answer is that "so's" is correct.
>

> The general rule is to use the apostrophe wherever omitting it is likely
> to cause confusion. Thus, one says "The several Smiths [Smith family
> members] in the study were unrelated," but "Mind your p's and q's."
>

I think even "ps and qs" is passable, but "as and is" just doesn't work.

[Peter Moylan]

That seems to be a common belief. I'd even say that a time will come
when the rule is reversed.

P.S. My "I'd" was not intended to be possessive.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter T. Daniels]

Pedophile priests is a much more salient topic in 2016 than who fought some
war going on a century ago.

> How many saw "Argo" and still don't know where Tehran is?

No idea. Did it have a map at the beginning, like *Casablanca*?

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:16:27 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 7:13:21 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:02:33 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 5:58:32 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 22:48:15 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 22:35:54 +0100, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On 4/17/2016 12:02 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> >> >>> Didn't you even learn the expression about p's and q's?
>> >> >> You mean pieds and culs, don't you?...don't want to be mixing up your
>> >> >> feet with your tail, now....r
>> >> >The Americans can't tell the difference between a foot lover and a child molester.
>> >> More than that, I don't think most Americans even know what a
>> >> pedophile is.
>> >Which movie won the Academy Award for Best Picture this year?
>>
>> Silly question, Daniels.
>>
>> How many movies have been produced about World War II since 1939? And
>> people still don't know who the Allied or the Axis powers were
>
>Pedophile priests is a much more salient topic in 2016 than who fought some
>war going on a century ago.

Only if they kept up with current events, which few do. This is one
reason why the Catholic Church was able to get away with it for so
long. I still say that not many people know the definition of a
"pedophile". Child molester, yes. Pedophile, no. And that's my only
point.

>> How many saw "Argo" and still don't know where Tehran is?
>
>No idea. Did it have a map at the beginning, like *Casablanca*?

Do you realize that the majority of Republicans, maybe Americans,
don't know where Benghazi is?

[Dingbat]

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 11:37:40 PM UTC+5:30, GordonD wrote:

> On 17/04/2016 18:23, Mr Macaw wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 16:25:01 +0100, Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com>

> > wrote:

> >
> >> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 1:44:00 AM UTC+5:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >>> "Within half an hour or so"
> >>> What is the maximum number of so's you can have?
> >>

> >> Three. "So so so far."
> >
> > What are you referring to?
>

> At a guess:
>
> "How are things going?"
> "So-so, so far..."
>
> But you could add another one:
>
> "How are things going?"
> "Not bad, up until now."
> "So, so-so so far?"

Ever so so-so so far!
> --
> Gordon Davie
> Edinburgh, Scotland

[Dingbat]

On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 4:26:53 AM UTC+5:30, grabber wrote:
> On 4/16/2016 10:34 PM, Whiskers wrote:

> > On 2016-04-16, Mr Macaw <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> So next question, what is the correct
> >> way to give a plural of the word so for example?
> >

> > For usenet and other places where typefaces can't be specified try
> > putting the word in upper case letters and the s as lower case, or
> > putting the word inside quotes and the s outside the quotes - like this:
> > SOs or "so"s. Neither is entirely satisfactory so ideally re-word your
> > question, eg "how many times can I repeat the word 'so' in this
> > expression?"
>
> All unnecessary. Stick with so's.

How about soes?

Or sos, like in "ayes and nos"?

[Mr Macaw]

sos looks like you want a rescue.

--
How does a Welshman find a sheep in tall grass?
Very satisfying.

[Mr Macaw]

ROTFPMSL! You made my point so well, I thank you.

"As they are about to go to print, Robinson confesses to the team that he was sent a list of 20 pedophile priests in 1993"

So tell me, why is it illegal for a priest to like feet?

--
Stupidity is the basic building block of the universe - Frank Zappa

[Mr Macaw]

Why shouldn't it? Give me one good reason why we should say "Peter's stereo, his father's golf course, New York's tallest building, my car's door, your flat's heating system" etc, but not "remove it's wallpaper". Why should "it" not get the possessive apostrophe? Exactly the same as above, but without a name, just a more general version.

--
The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline Luggage. -- Mark Russell

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 02:22:54 +0100, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-Apr-18 10:28, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 17/04/2016 4:46 am, Mr Macaw wrote:
>
>>> An apostrophe (as far as I'm concerned) is possessive. "Peter's
>>> football" - the football belongs to Peter. "Two Peter's football" -
>>> rather clumsy, but sounds like a football belonging to two people named
>>> Peter, similar to John and Bill's football.
>>
>> So for you "it's" is possessive and means "its"?
>
> That seems to be a common belief. I'd even say that a time will come
> when the rule is reversed.
>
> P.S. My "I'd" was not intended to be possessive.

That would my "I's", or more correctly, "my". Perhaps there should be a word like my for it. "I get up and put on my shoes." "It gets up and puts on ____ shoes."

--
Why do they call it a TV set when you only get one?

[Mr Macaw]

If you're not a child or a beginner, you should rephrase. "7 instances of the letter a were found in the sentence", not "7 as was found innit?"

--
Three guys go to a ski lodge, and there aren't enough rooms, so they have to share a bed. In the middle of the night, the guy on the right wakes up and says, "I had this wild, vivid dream of getting a hand job!" The guy on the left wakes up, and unbelievably, he's had the same dream, too. Then the guy in the middle wakes up and says, "That's funny, I dreamt I was skiing!"

[Mr Macaw]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 00:00:59 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 3:53:17 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:02:59 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> > Once again: "At school," you were unlikely to be discussing linguistics.
>> > However unfortunate that may be, it's the truth.
>
>> I have no idea what you're talking about. In school we are taught to use proper English. Linguistics is the same.
>
> Oh, jeez.

Linguistics is the study of language. Why would you use something different in the study of the language than in the language itself?

>> > Didn't you even learn the expression about p's and q's?
>>
>> Yes, what makes you think I didn't?
>
> You don't know how to spell it.

The expression is almost always spoken, just after you swear.

--
I was at an ATM yesterday when a little old lady asked if I could check her balance, so I pushed her over.

[Mr Macaw]

No, that's a paedophile. You wrote pedophile. Ped is pertaining to feet, as in a pedal on a bicycle, and pedicure, meaning to smarten up your feet.

--
A soldier who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a seasoned veteran.

[Mack A. Damia]

Not in Leftpondia.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

[Robert Bannister]

The apostrophe s for possession is a relatively modern invention. If
anything, the apostrophe shows a missing letter because the original
genitive ending was -es.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 7:02:41 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 00:00:59 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 3:53:17 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:02:59 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> > Once again: "At school," you were unlikely to be discussing linguistics.
> >> > However unfortunate that may be, it's the truth.
> >> I have no idea what you're talking about. In school we are taught to use proper English. Linguistics is the same.
> >
> > Oh, jeez.
>
> Linguistics is the study of language.

As it _is_, not as it "should be."

> Why would you use something different in the study of the language than in the language itself?

Hunh?

[Peter Moylan]

I see what Mr Macaw means, though, because a lot of people are already
using possessive it's. To be consistent, we should also write hi's,
he'r, m'y, and so on.

[Robert Bannister]

I like it. We could also set up stalls selling fruit and veg.

[Mr Macaw]

No, because those words are already possessive. You should have written him's, her's, me's. But we already have the words his, her, my for those.

--
"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed." - U.S. Air Force Pilot training manual

[RH Draney]

Unfortunately, we also have both "our" and "ours", both "their" and
"theirs"...'sfunny you don't see more apostrophe trouble with those....r

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Apr-22 04:58, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:17:49 +0100, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> I see what Mr Macaw means, though, because a lot of people are already
>> using possessive it's. To be consistent, we should also write hi's,
>> he'r, m'y, and so on.
>
> No, because those words are already possessive.

In the same way that "its" is already possessive.

[Mr Macaw]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 03:06:11 +0100, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-Apr-22 04:58, Mr Macaw wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:17:49 +0100, Peter Moylan
>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I see what Mr Macaw means, though, because a lot of people are already
>>> using possessive it's. To be consistent, we should also write hi's,
>>> he'r, m'y, and so on.
>>
>> No, because those words are already possessive.
>
> In the same way that "its" is already possessive.

"Its" isn't a word in itself is it? No more than "stones".

--
On the topic of mobile phones:
Anything bigger than 4 inches is getting into the region where most people would have difficulty holding and using the device comfortably -- Callum Kerr, 2013.

[Mr Macaw]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that schoolteachers only teach what is in the Oxford Dictionary of 1970.

--
Yesterday scientists in the USA revealed that beer contains small traces of female hormones.
To prove their theory they fed 100 men 12 pints of beer and observed that 100% of them started talking nonsense and couldn't drive.

[Mr Macaw]

So you guys have screwed up yet again. What do you call people to do with feet then? We would say a pedicurist for example. You probably think that's someone who cleans children.

--
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 2:39:41 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 04:27:17 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 7:02:41 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 00:00:59 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 3:53:17 PM UTC-4, Mr Macaw wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:02:59 +0100, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> >> > Once again: "At school," you were unlikely to be discussing linguistics.
> >> >> > However unfortunate that may be, it's the truth.
> >> >> I have no idea what you're talking about. In school we are taught to use proper English. Linguistics is the same.
> >> > Oh, jeez.
> >> Linguistics is the study of language.
> > As it _is_, not as it "should be."
> >> Why would you use something different in the study of the language than in the language itself?
> > Hunh?
>
> You seem to be under the misapprehension that schoolteachers only teach what is in the Oxford Dictionary of 1970.

Is that what you meant by "use something different in the study of the
language than in the language itself"? I don't see how you get from there
to here, or what either one is supposed to mean.

What dictionary did Oxford publish in 1970?

[Mack A. Damia]

From Greek pais (genitive paidos) "child".

Combining form of Latin ped- (stem of pes) "foot".

Well, I think you are kidding or grossly misinformed. For example
surely you know the difference between the Latin "Proc" and the Greek
"Proc" (Proktos).

[Mr Macaw]

Which goes to paed, as in paedophile, someone who loves children.

> Combining form of Latin ped- (stem of pes) "foot".

Which goes to ped, as in pedal, on a bicycle, for your foot to push.

> Well, I think you are kidding or grossly misinformed. For example
> surely you know the difference between the Latin "Proc"

Anything in particular?

http://classics.case.edu/asgle/bookshelf/abbreviations-in-latin-inscriptions/popp/

PROC pro(vin)c(iae), proc(curator), proc(onsul), proc(onsulatu), proc(onsule), proc(onsuli), proc(onsuli, proc(onsulis), Proc(ula), Proc(ulae), Proc(ulo), Proc(ulus), proc(urante), proc(urator), proc(uratore), proc(uratorem), Proc(uratores), proc(uratori), proc(uratoribus), proc(uratoris), proc(urtor), proc(utarori)

> and the Greek "Proc" (Proktos).

I'm not sure what the anus has to do with this.

--
China has outlawed sexual harassment.
This will make work conditions much more bearable during those 16 hour days at the sweat shop.

[Mr Macaw]

That linguistics is part of learning English.

> What dictionary did Oxford publish in 1970?

A black one? What are you asking?

--
Dijon vu: the same mustard as before.

[Mack A. Damia]

In hindsight I have to say that it depends on your view.

[Mr Macaw]

Get out from under my desk!

--
"Dear Santa, this year please send clothes for all those poor ladies in Daddy's computer, Amen."

[Mack A. Damia]

It's the Roto-Rooter man.

[Peter T. Daniels]

It isn't. When "at school" did you learn concepts like "phoneme" and "sociolect"?

> > What dictionary did Oxford publish in 1970?
>
> A black one? What are you asking?

I am asking what you were referring to when you mentioned "the Oxford
dictionary of 1970."

[Mr Macaw]

Possibly, if I'd taken English at a higher level, or paid more attention to the lesson instead of my teacher's breasts.

>> > What dictionary did Oxford publish in 1970?
>>
>> A black one? What are you asking?
>
> I am asking what you were referring to when you mentioned "the Oxford
> dictionary of 1970."

I thought it was obvious. Strict English with no colloquialisms etc. Not like the dictionaries of today that let any old word in.

--
Peter is listening to "DJ Splash - Inspiration"

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:31:51 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

The 1970 edition, of course.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/oxford-english-dictionary/oclc/300145146

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Mr Macaw]

My god there's a copy only 22 miles from me!

--
Acupuncturists do it with a small prick.

[Peter T. Daniels]

So even if linguistics had been taught "at school," you wouldn't have been
exposed to it. (But it wasn't.)

> >> > What dictionary did Oxford publish in 1970?
> >> A black one? What are you asking?
> > I am asking what you were referring to when you mentioned "the Oxford
> > dictionary of 1970."
>
> I thought it was obvious. Strict English with no colloquialisms etc. Not like the dictionaries of today that let any old word in.

That suggests you're not actually familiar with what may have been the OED.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Of what? They don't publish something called "The Oxford Dictionary."

> http://www.worldcat.org/title/oxford-english-dictionary/oclc/300145146

That is not an edition (the Second Supplement started in 1972), it's a
printing of the 1933 complete reprint (the first version that was called
the OED and not the NED).

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 20:11:12 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

For God's Sake, Peter. Do you just live to post picky-ass little
bullshit stuff here? Have nothing better to do? At loose ends
because no one if offering an editing-for-hire gig?

The link takes you to something with the title of "The Oxford english
dictionary" [SIC] on the capitalization. Additionally is says:
"Oxford, En : Clarendon Press, 1970, ©1933"

It was published. That's what they call it when a book is printed. It
is an "edition". That's what they call a published version. It was
published as an edition in 1970.

What kind of asshole nitpick is saying that it is "a printing" and not
an edition?

You seem to be in a cage match competition with Mr Macaw for Least
Respected Contributor to this newsgroup.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Some further nitpicking -

An "edition" is not the same as a "printing/print/reprint".

I have here the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. It is a two-volume
abridgement of the OED. It is the Third Edition. However on its journey
from the First Edition it has had several additions and corrections,
some of which have justified a change of Edition number. The copy I have
was printed in 1978. That was the 25th printing of that dictionary.
Sixteen of those printings have been straight reprints of the previous
version.

The Third Edition has had nineteen reprints, five of which involved
additions and/or corrections.

One of the reprints was in 1970.

The covers of my 1978 reprint are black. I also have a copy from 1968.
That has black-with-a-bluish-tint covers.

I may, or may not, have single-volume Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
I would expect that to have black or dark covers.

Note: "covers" are the hard covers not the dust covers.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Apr-23 13:43, Tony Cooper wrote:

> You seem to be in a cage match competition with Mr Macaw for Least
> Respected Contributor to this newsgroup.

Indeed. Look at the people who respond to Buck Buck Bacaw. Most people
ignore him as a rather irrelevant ignoramus, but there are some people
who simply cannot resist the bait. The world would be a slightly better
place if we all just plonked those addicted victims.

ObAlmostRelevant. Yesterday I got a phone call from an Indian (Why can't
they learn to hide their distinctive accent, if they want to fool us?
And why haven't Nigerian criminals discovered the telephone?) who
claimed to be from my car insurance company, in connection with my
"recent accident". I've notified my insurance company, who seem to have
less understanding than I have of phone scams. Anyway, I did a bit of
internet searching, to find out what these scammers hope to achieve. One
quite believable theory is that these people are preparing a "sucker
list" of people who respond to these calls.

I don't think I'm on the list. I told the caller, in the most offensive
and obscene language I could think of, just what I thought of her. She
hung up.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <i9rlhbh477ar4tfr4...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 20:11:12 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 5:54:48 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:31:51 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

[snip - the bone fides of a book]

> >> >I am asking what you were referring to when you mentioned "the Oxford
> >> >dictionary of 1970."
> >>
> >> The 1970 edition, of course.
> >
> >Of what? They don't publish something called "The Oxford Dictionary."
> >
> >> http://www.worldcat.org/title/oxford-english-dictionary/oclc/300145146
> >
> >That is not an edition (the Second Supplement started in 1972), it's a
> >printing of the 1933 complete reprint (the first version that was called
> >the OED and not the NED).
>
> For God's Sake, Peter. Do you just live to post picky-ass little
> bullshit stuff here? Have nothing better to do? At loose ends
> because no one if offering an editing-for-hire gig?
>
> The link takes you to something with the title of "The Oxford english
> dictionary" [SIC] on the capitalization. Additionally is says:
> "Oxford, En : Clarendon Press, 1970, ©1933"
>
> It was published. That's what they call it when a book is printed. It
> is an "edition". That's what they call a published version. It was
> published as an edition in 1970.
>
> What kind of asshole nitpick is saying that it is "a printing" and not
> an edition?
>
> You seem to be in a cage match competition with Mr Macaw for Least
> Respected Contributor to this newsgroup.

I would put Mr. Macaw ahead on points because his sigs are humorous at
times.

--

charles

[Peter Moylan]

Haven't you noticed who you are responding to? "Surely you know" is not
an appropriate comment in this case.

[Mr Macaw]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 15:03:22 +0100, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 2016-Apr-23 05:05, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 19:40:49 +0100, "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, I think you are kidding or grossly misinformed. For example
>> surely you know the difference between the Latin "Proc" and the Greek
>> "Proc" (Proktos).
>
> Haven't you noticed who you are responding to? "Surely you know" is not
> an appropriate comment in this case.

Please cite requirement for having an honours degree in English to use this group.

--
"Take off lid and push up bottom." (From a stick deodorant label)

[Tony Cooper]

Still, if you refer to a definition in your dictionary, and someone
who has that same publisher's dictionary that does not include the
word asks you "What edition do you have?", you would treat that
question as a perfectly normal use of "edition".

Grabbing a Webster's dictionary out of my son's old room*, I see that
it is a "thumb index, trade edition". My Roget's thesaurus is the
"Ninth printing, January 1954" but the page also says that "Previous
editions copyright , (years listed). The cover proclaims it the "New
Edition".

"Edition" seems to be a publisher's synonym for "printing".

*All my dictionaries are packed to make room for other books. The
keyboard has replaced my need for bound paper at hand.

>
>The Third Edition has had nineteen reprints, five of which involved
>additions and/or corrections.
>
>One of the reprints was in 1970.
>
>The covers of my 1978 reprint are black. I also have a copy from 1968.
>That has black-with-a-bluish-tint covers.
>
>I may, or may not, have single-volume Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
>I would expect that to have black or dark covers.
>
>Note: "covers" are the hard covers not the dust covers.
--

[Peter T. Daniels]

So the publishing industry and library catalogs are yet two further things
you are ignorant of.

If you don't know the difference between a new printing and a new edition
-- and the meaning of "1970 (c) 1933" -- at least have the decency not
to flaunt your ignorance.

> The link takes you to something with the title of "The Oxford english
> dictionary" [SIC] on the capitalization. Additionally is says:
> "Oxford, En : Clarendon Press, 1970, ©1933"
>
> It was published. That's what they call it when a book is printed. It
> is an "edition". That's what they call a published version. It was
> published as an edition in 1970.

No. It was "published as an edition," if you must, in 1933. Or do you
not even know what (c) means? It was reprinted every so often, and some
newly founded libraries purchased their copy in the early 1970s, so
that was the printing of the 1933 work they happened to get.

> What kind of asshole nitpick is saying that it is "a printing" and not
> an edition?

The entire multi-billion-dollar US publishing industry.

> You seem to be in a cage match competition with Mr Macaw for Least
> Respected Contributor to this newsgroup.

And you, the most ignorant on the greatest variety of topics.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

> ObAlmostRelevant. Yesterday I got a phone call from an Indian (Why can't
> they learn to hide their distinctive accent, if they want to fool us?

Ours use Anglo names. Do yours?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 10:01:31 AM UTC-4, Charles Bishop wrote:

> I would put Mr. Macaw ahead on points because his sigs are humorous at
> times.

Having often non-humorous .sigs gets more points than having no .sig?

Your passive-aggressivity frequently makes no sense.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 11:01:21 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:25:24 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> >An "edition" is not the same as a "printing/print/reprint".
> >
> >I have here the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. It is a two-volume
> >abridgement of the OED. It is the Third Edition. However on its journey
> >from the First Edition it has had several additions and corrections,
> >some of which have justified a change of Edition number. The copy I have
> >was printed in 1978. That was the 25th printing of that dictionary.
> >Sixteen of those printings have been straight reprints of the previous
> >version.
>
> Still, if you refer to a definition in your dictionary, and someone
> who has that same publisher's dictionary that does not include the
> word asks you "What edition do you have?", you would treat that
> question as a perfectly normal use of "edition".

There is no "still" about it. The 1970 printing contains no content
different from that of a 1960 or 1950 printing unless it has had a new
edition in between.

> Grabbing a Webster's dictionary out of my son's old room*, I see that
> it is a "thumb index, trade edition". My Roget's thesaurus is the
> "Ninth printing, January 1954" but the page also says that "Previous
> editions copyright , (years listed). The cover proclaims it the "New
> Edition".
>
> "Edition" seems to be a publisher's synonym for "printing".

Stop Flaunting Your Ignorance.

You may have the Merriam-Webster [Second] Collegiate Dictionary;
they may have chosen not to put "Second" in the title because in 1954, the
Second International was their current unabridged dictionary.

Or, you may have a dictionary from some other publisher, because G. C.
Merriam failed to protect the "Webster" name and any other publisher
can use it in a dictionary title to lend it a false sense of authority.

The Collegiate is now in its Eleventh Edition, which has had umpteen
printings (but the Twelfth may be imminent because a few months ago
there was a stack of Elevenths among the Bargain Books).

You may or may not have an actual Roget's Thesaurus. Roget's design
put synonyms and antonyms in parallel columns. Later thesauruses that
use Roget's name are arranged alphabetically, which defeats the purpose
of a thesaurus, and nowadays even the ones that retain his topical arrangement
do not use the parallel columns system.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 08:51:39 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 11:01:21 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 11:25:24 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> >An "edition" is not the same as a "printing/print/reprint".
>> >
>> >I have here the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. It is a two-volume
>> >abridgement of the OED. It is the Third Edition. However on its journey
>> >from the First Edition it has had several additions and corrections,
>> >some of which have justified a change of Edition number. The copy I have
>> >was printed in 1978. That was the 25th printing of that dictionary.
>> >Sixteen of those printings have been straight reprints of the previous
>> >version.
>>
>> Still, if you refer to a definition in your dictionary, and someone
>> who has that same publisher's dictionary that does not include the
>> word asks you "What edition do you have?", you would treat that
>> question as a perfectly normal use of "edition".
>
>There is no "still" about it. The 1970 printing contains no content
>different from that of a 1960 or 1950 printing unless it has had a new
>edition in between.
>

Except that the publishers of the SOED don't describe to the changes as
resulting in a new "edition".

In my copy of the 1978 SOED the title page has:

THIRD EDITION
completely reset
with etymologies revised by
G. W. S. FRIEDRICHSEN
and with revised addenda

Then on the next page:

<snip info about the first two editions>

Third Edition 1944
Reprinted with Corrections 1947
With Corrections and Revised Addenda 1956
Reprinted with Corrections 1959, 1952, 1965, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1970,
1972
Reset with Revised Etymologies and Addenda 1973, 1974
1975 (With Corrections), 1977, 1978.

In computer software terms "Third Edition" is a major release with what
follows being minor-releases or updates to that release: 3.01, 3.02,
3.03, etc.

>> Grabbing a Webster's dictionary out of my son's old room*, I see that
>> it is a "thumb index, trade edition". My Roget's thesaurus is the
>> "Ninth printing, January 1954" but the page also says that "Previous
>> editions copyright , (years listed). The cover proclaims it the "New
>> Edition".
>>
>> "Edition" seems to be a publisher's synonym for "printing".
>
>Stop Flaunting Your Ignorance.
>
>You may have the Merriam-Webster [Second] Collegiate Dictionary;
>they may have chosen not to put "Second" in the title because in 1954, the
>Second International was their current unabridged dictionary.
>
>Or, you may have a dictionary from some other publisher, because G. C.
>Merriam failed to protect the "Webster" name and any other publisher
>can use it in a dictionary title to lend it a false sense of authority.
>
>The Collegiate is now in its Eleventh Edition, which has had umpteen
>printings (but the Twelfth may be imminent because a few months ago
>there was a stack of Elevenths among the Bargain Books).
>
>You may or may not have an actual Roget's Thesaurus. Roget's design
>put synonyms and antonyms in parallel columns. Later thesauruses that
>use Roget's name are arranged alphabetically, which defeats the purpose
>of a thesaurus, and nowadays even the ones that retain his topical arrangement
>do not use the parallel columns system.
>
>> *All my dictionaries are packed to make room for other books. The
>> keyboard has replaced my need for bound paper at hand.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Ours do.

[Peter T. Daniels]

They did eventually get around to putting out a new edition.

[Mr Macaw]

I took in some of it. And it was.

>> >> > What dictionary did Oxford publish in 1970?
>> >> A black one? What are you asking?
>> > I am asking what you were referring to when you mentioned "the Oxford
>> > dictionary of 1970."
>>
>> I thought it was obvious. Strict English with no colloquialisms etc. Not like the dictionaries of today that let any old word in.
>
> That suggests you're not actually familiar with what may have been the OED.

I am as my mother has one.

--
"Inflation is creeping up," a young man said to his friend,
"Yesterday I ordered a $25.00 steak in a restaurant and told them
to put it on my American Express card -- and it fit."

[Robert Bannister]

I have had a couple using fake American accents.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Apr-24 02:37, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 08:33:27 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>>> ObAlmostRelevant. Yesterday I got a phone call from an Indian (Why can't
>>> they learn to hide their distinctive accent, if they want to fool us?
>>
>> Ours use Anglo names. Do yours?
>
> Ours do.

They do, and they often claim to be phoning from somewhere in Australia,
but they seem to choose name that went out of fashion long ago.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 7:40:18 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 23/04/2016 11:33 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

> >> ObAlmostRelevant. Yesterday I got a phone call from an Indian (Why can't
> >> they learn to hide their distinctive accent, if they want to fool us?
> > Ours use Anglo names. Do yours?
>
> I have had a couple using fake American accents.

Ours don't try that. (Nor British or Ozzie ones, either. They just sound "Indian.")

Bangalore is supposed to be a hub for that, so maybe that's the accent they have.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 8:54:15 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2016-Apr-24 02:37, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 08:33:27 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 9:58:01 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

> >>> ObAlmostRelevant. Yesterday I got a phone call from an Indian (Why can't
> >>> they learn to hide their distinctive accent, if they want to fool us?
> >> Ours use Anglo names. Do yours?
> > Ours do.
>
> They do, and they often claim to be phoning from somewhere in Australia,
> but they seem to choose name that went out of fashion long ago.

Must be different sorts of deception laws -- ours just say what "company"
they're calling from but don't offer a location.

The best one is "Microsoft Company" and "we have detected problems in your
computer."