Singular or Plural Verb?
Jim Harris
I've forwarded the post from our newsgroup; we invite comment from those
superior in English grammar. :)
Mike
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
James Kass wrote:
I am designing a playbill and posters for a theatre group called "The
Backstage Players". Please tell me which of the following is correct:
"The Backstage Players Proudly Presents"
-- or --
"The Backstage Players Proudly Present"
The group has been arguing about this for quite some time and would
apprieciate clarification. Thanks-- James
Boyd Campbell replies:
"The Backstage Players" are one group so it should be "The Backstage
Players Presents" just as if it were "Bob Presents". or "Warner
Brothers Studios Presents".
Daniel A. Norton
Subject: Re: Singular or Plural Verb?
From: dano...@albany.net (Daniel A. Norton)
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:34:10 GMT
Jim Harris <jha...@raven.cybercomm.net> wrote:
>"The Backstage Players Proudly Presents"
>-- or --
>"The Backstage Players Proudly Present"
The answer to this probably relates to local custom more than anything
else, so there is no one right answer (although many will tell you there
is). The correct answer lies in how you conceptualize the company. In
the U.S., companies are often considered as "corporate" identities (not
necessarily in the business sense of the word). As a separate singular
-- corporate -- body, the singular is appropriate. If you consider that
the verb refers conceptually to several individuals, then the plural is
appropriate -- this seems to be the preferred British usage.
--
Daniel A. Norton
dano...@albany.net
Avi Jacobson
>
> Members of the alt.english.usage newsgroup:
>
> I've forwarded the post from our newsgroup; we invite comment from those
> superior in English grammar. :)
>
> Mike
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> James Kass wrote:
>
> I am designing a playbill and posters for a theatre group called "The
> Backstage Players". Please tell me which of the following is correct:
>
> -- or --
> "The Backstage Players Proudly Present"
>
> apprieciate clarification. Thanks-- James
>
> Boyd Campbell replies:
>
> "The Backstage Players" are one group so it should be "The Backstage
> Players Presents" just as if it were "Bob Presents". or "Warner
> Brothers Studios Presents".
There are two factors here which make this issue less than clear-cut:
(1) In British usage, all names of corporations, organizations, etc. are
usually construed to be plural. So even "British Telecom is" would be
frowned upon in favor (or, to be precise, favour) of "British
Telecom are". Thus, for the British, "The Backstage Players
Presents" would sound very odd indeed.
(2) Boyd is right about the Players being one group; however, they are
thought of as a group composed of individuals -- Unlike Warner Bros.
Studios, but like The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. You think of
the Beatles as a group of four individuals, so that "The Beatles has
recorded thousands of tunes" sounds wrong. By the same token, so
does "The Backstage Players Presents".
I cast my vote for "Present".
Regards,
Avi
--
Avi Jacobson, email: avi_...@netvision.net.il | When an idea is
Home Page (Israel): | wanting, a word
http://www.netvision.net.il/php/avi_jaco | can always be found
Mirror Home Page (U.S.): | to take its place.
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/4034 | -- Goethe
Markus Laker
> There are two factors here which make this issue less than clear-cut:
There certainly are.
> (1) In British usage, all names of corporations, organizations, etc. are
> usually construed to be plural. So even "British Telecom is" would be
> frowned upon in favor (or, to be precise, favour) of "British
> Telecom are".
As usual, it's more complicated than that. I would say:
BT has cut its prices.
BT have cut their prices.
BT are a bunch of fine, hardworking people.
Brits sometimes use the singular when discussing the organisation as a
whole. We always use the plural when concentrating on its individual
members, and I suspect we sometimes use it when we want to give a moral
slant to the actions of an organisation. ('SomeTelCo have put their prices
up *again* [, the greedy swine].')
> Thus, for the British, "The Backstage Players
> Presents" would sound very odd indeed.
Yep.
> (2) Boyd is right about the Players being one group; however, they are
> thought of as a group composed of individuals -- Unlike Warner Bros.
> Studios, but like The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. You think of
> the Beatles as a group of four individuals, so that "The Beatles has
> recorded thousands of tunes" sounds wrong. By the same token, so
> does "The Backstage Players Presents".
Isn't it also influenced by the form of the name: if the name looks plural,
isn't a plural verb more likely be used?
The Rank Corporation presents ...
Pearl and Dean present ...
Speculation: if a name consists of initials, perhaps it's less likely to
look plural. B&Q is more likely to take a singular verb than Marks and
Spencer.
> I cast my vote for "Present".
So do I.
--
Markus Laker.
Frank Cole
In article <4r4bar$5...@zeus.tcp.co.uk> la...@tcp.co.uk "Markus Laker" writes:
> Avi Jacobson <avi_...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
<snip>
> > (1) In British usage, all names of corporations, organizations, etc. are
> > usually construed to be plural. So even "British Telecom is" would be
> > frowned upon in favor (or, to be precise, favour) of "British
> > Telecom are".
<snip>
When I arrived in UK, this topic presented a problem to an AmEng speaker;
singular subject (GPO) and plural verb (aargh!). Resolved in due course
to my satisfaction by mentally substituting `they' for the singular
subject. The team are travelling to Gritting. The GPO are on strike.
Fords (the motor manufacturer) are on strike. The Coal Board state that
no more money is available for the miners. The miner's union win pay
increase. The Coal Board claim that no mines will close. British
Steel claim that no plants will close. British Steel shut down
Ravenscroft (or whatever it was/is). The team lose to Gritting eleven.
All of the foregoing seems quite natural to me in UK -- substituting
`they' for the sing. subj., that is.
--
Frank Cole
Danielle Colburn
I agree with Boyd.
Lynn Emrich
IT> > I cast my vote for "Present".
IT>
IT> So do I.
IT> Markus Laker.
Wouldn't it depend on how many plays were presented? One play =
"Present", more than one "Presents". IMHO
-=Lynn=-
--
Lynn Emrich West Palm Beach, FL
p008...@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Live Theatre is good for the mind !!
Truly Donovan
Lynn Emrich wrote:
>
> IT> > I cast my vote for "Present".
> IT>
> IT> So do I.
> IT> Markus Laker.
>
> Wouldn't it depend on how many plays were presented? One play =
> "Present", more than one "Presents". IMHO
In standard American English, the number of the verb is governed by the
subject, not the object.
She sells thread.
She sells thread and thimbles.
They sell thread.
They sell thread and thimbles.
By your rule, it would have to be
She sell thread.
She sells thread and thimbles.
They sell thread.
They sells thread and thimbles.
Truly Donovan
Philippa Hogben
As a British English speaker I would say that some of your examples sound wrong to
me. I would say:
the team IS...
the GPO IS...
Ford IS.. (I don't think I have ever heard it referred to as Fords)
the Coal Board STATES/CLAIMS...
the miners' union WINS (I don't think I have seen this with a plural verb)
British Steel shut down... ) I would say these are irrelevant because these sound like
the team lose... ) past tenses so (eg) "he shut" or "they shut"
Philippa Hogben
An
extra
few
lines
to
keep
the
newsreader
happy
Frank Cole
In article <4rgqdd$q...@paperboy.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>
p...@eee.nott.ac.uk "Philippa Hogben" writes:
> Frank Cole <fr...@poco.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> >When I arrived in UK, this topic presented a problem to an AmEng speaker;
> >singular subject (GPO) and plural verb (aargh!). ...
<snip>
> As a British English speaker I would say that some of your examples sound wrong
> to
> me. I would say:
> the team IS...
> the GPO IS...
> Ford IS.. (I don't think I have ever heard it referred to
> as Fords)
> the Coal Board STATES/CLAIMS...
> the miners' union WINS (I don't think I have seen this with a
> plural verb)
>
> British Steel shut down... ) I would say these are irrelevant because these
> sound like
> the team lose... ) past tenses so (eg) "he shut" or "they shut"
Good. Great. I think you've got it. Sing.subj./sing.verb., plu.subj./
plu.verb. Still, I regularly hear/heard in person, on wireless, and on
TV, and read, the plural verb in each, vis., team are, GPO are, Fords are, Coal
Board claim, miners union win, etc.
Maybe the NHS have provided me with a faulty hearing aid.
How about this. TV is on -- Ch. 4 news. It's 7:20 pm, Thur., 4/7/96.
I'll listen. ... Peter Snow talking about Moscow ... 7:28 - commercials
... 7:30 - back to the news. Ah. A slight diversion. Newsreader just
reported that the tennis 1/4 final (Henman v. Taylor) was *continuously*
interupted by rain. Actually, it was *repeatedly* interrupted,
certainly not continuously. Back to the topic. 7:40 - commercials ...
here is a BT commercial ... Brian Walden says, "A big company like BT
meet the needs of small ...". I rest my case, M'Lady.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that PHs usage is wrong. What she uses is
possibly even more widespread now. She says that my examples sound
wrong to her. They sound wrong to me! That is the point. But, my
examples are in use. Just listen and read.
Ah! The (London) Times, Thurs, 4/7/96, Section 2, p.48, "England
hope to rest their case with Trent Bridge triumph." Looks very
sing.subj./plur.verb to me. And I have not yet read today's paper.
Simply turned to the last of the sports pages -- and there it was.
Took maybe 2 minutes. Please understand. I am not saying the BritEng
is wrong. It is not wrong. It is correct. It just is not the way
I (AmEng) speak. It all becomes ok to my ear when I mentally
substitute `they' for the sing.subj., thus, "They hope to rest ...".
--
Frank Cole
Scott Tarbet
It seems to me that the decision comes down to one of the character of
the group, and then proper grammar follows:
If the group considers the "Players" to be an entity per se (ala
corporation), then it is properly "presents".
If the group considers the "Players" to be they themselves as a
cooperative enterprise among individuals (ala partnership), and not an
entity per se, it is properly "present".
Either way the group needs to decide and stick to one or the other.
OTOH, I've been in "Players" groups that did it both ways, and I've
got to say that "Present" is less jarring grammatically. :->
Best,
Scott
Mike Barnes
The fingers of Frank Cole <fr...@poco.demon.co.uk> created this
pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>In article <4rgqdd$q...@paperboy.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>
> p...@eee.nott.ac.uk "Philippa Hogben" writes:
>
>> Frank Cole <fr...@poco.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >When I arrived in UK, this topic presented a problem to an AmEng speaker;
>> >singular subject (GPO) and plural verb (aargh!). ...
>
>
>Good. Great. I think you've got it. Sing.subj./sing.verb., plu.subj./
>plu.verb. Still, I regularly hear/heard in person, on wireless, and on
>TV, and read, the plural verb in each, vis., team are, GPO are, Fords are, Coal
>Board claim, miners union win, etc.
>
>Maybe the NHS have provided me with a faulty hearing aid.
>
I used to be, like most BrE speakers, oblivious to these singular/plural
mismatches. Unfortunately, I am now sensitised. But, I still regard
the practice as one of *abbreviation* rather than grammatical
sloppiness. "The team (members) are", "the GPO (management) are", etc.
Maybe there's nothing wrong with the hearing-aid that the NHS (doctors
and/or nurses and/or specialists and/or consultants) have provided you
with, after all.
BTW I just heard a new variant on BBC Radio Four "... the theatre
company has their funds increased ...".
Regards, Mike.
--
Mike Barnes, Stockport, England.
This week's hot tips for the lottery: 12, 14, 23, 32, 38, 34.
Tim
In article <836506...@poco.demon.co.uk>, Frank Cole
<fr...@poco.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
[mucho snippo]
|Ah! The (London) Times, Thurs, 4/7/96, Section 2, p.48, "England
|hope to rest their case with Trent Bridge triumph." Looks very
|sing.subj./plur.verb to me.
It may sound right to some but it looks like Murdoch's rag got it wrong:
papers are not arbiters of the English Language. In cases like this it is
usual to assume that the word 'England' is shorthand for 'The England Team'
(it hardly refers to the whole country!). Using substitution, the sentence
does not maketh sense:
The England Team hope to rest their case with Trent Bridge triumph.
But then I assume this was a headline as, grammatically (IMHO) it stinketh.
It should read:
(The) England (Team) hopes to rest its case with a Trent Bridge triumph.
(Though any sport which has you in when you're out, and out when you're in
is dangerous ground for a discussion.)
Similarly, and following on from earlier postings, it is usual to accept
that a corporate entity is singular but the plural form is appropriate when
the corporate name is used as shorthand to refer to the workforce, as in:
Ford are on strike. (Which means "The Ford workers are on strike")
The corporate entity is hardly likely to strike, is it?
Ford sells black cars. (Means that "The corporate entity sells black cars")
I hope it is all clearer now! It is vital to consider context when looking
at this stuff, otherwise all sorts of wrong assumptions can be jumped to.
Newspapers have perhaps not been a good place to study the finer points of
English ever since the now infamous "Freddie Star ate my hamster" story.
Although gramatically correct it went to prove what utter cr@p is printed in
newspapers. ;-)
T.
--
/\ Beech Cottage | Using Voyager 1.07 & na077 on Acorn A310 |
/ \ Stoke Mandeville ==========================================
( ) HP22 5UP UK +44(0)1296 615825
|| See our Web Site: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/timil
Beech Consulting : Tight Fit Theatre : The Young Theatre : Prompt
... What is need compared to the path?
KJBlake
In article <MPLANET.31dd21b...@news.indirect.com>,
Stev...@InDirect.Com (Steve MacGregor) writes:
>> Now, how can we get people to use "datum" singular and "data" plural?
>
> I don't think we're going to. There's a difference between the misuses
>here, though.
> The plural of "datum" is turning from the plural of a countable noun
into
>an uncountable noun. Or rather, it has already done so. However, I will
>continue to speak of a "datum" when I'm talking about a single item in a
>computer file, and use the plural "data" when talking about a number of
>them, but will also use "data" as uncountable when talking about an
amount
>of it.
But what is an *item* in a computer file? Is a datum a record, and the
file data?
Or is a datum a field, and the record data?
Perhaps a byte is a datum, and the field data.
And finally, it could be a bit that's a datum, and a byte that's data.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no standard use of the word "datum" to
describe any of these, and the word "datum" is used by very few people to
describe *any* element within a file. I prefer "data," used as a singular,
uncountable noun, for all of these.
Frank Cole
In article <R+eIrjBh...@exodus.co.uk>
news-r...@exodus.co.uk "Mike Barnes" writes:
> The fingers of Frank Cole <fr...@poco.demon.co.uk> created this
> pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
> >In article <4rgqdd$q...@paperboy.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>
> > p...@eee.nott.ac.uk "Philippa Hogben" writes:
> >> Frank Cole <fr...@poco.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> >When I arrived in UK, this topic presented a problem to an AmEng speaker;
> >> >singular subject (GPO) and plural verb (aargh!). ...
> >[snip]
Yes. Just as AmEng speakers may be oblivious to the "strange"
characteristics and styles which they grew up with.
> Unfortunately, I am now sensitised. But, I still regard
> the practice as one of *abbreviation* rather than grammatical
> sloppiness. ...
I do not think of it as an abbreviation and I do not consider it a
matter of sloppiness of any sort. It is simply a different style,
or grammer. My point in this regard is just that it sounds strange
to the AmEng speaker.
> "The team (members) are", "the GPO (management) are", etc.
OK, but if "The team are ...", then what do you do when talking
about two teams, "The teams are ...". To the AmEng speaker, these
warrant different forms of the verb, ie, "The team is ..." and
"The teams are ...". Simple as that. I'm not suggesting that the
BrEng speaker change (but I think he is changing) and certainly
not suggesting that the BrEng speaker is sloppy or wrong.
In the case of GPO, one could have a context speaking of the GPO
in 1900 and the GPO in 1970, ie, a context discussing differences
between the "two" GPOs. So, "The GPO in 1900 was (note sing. verb)
a govt body which delivered post and telegrams, whereas the GPO of
1970 did not deliver telegrams (I'm making this up, btw). The two
GPOs were (note plural verb) different in this regard." This verb
usage (sing. in one case & plur. in the other) makes sense to to
the AmEng speaker. I take it that the BrEng speaker would have
used the plur. form each time, thus, "The GPO in 1900 were (note
plur.) ... The two GPOs were (plur. again) ...". But please, not
wrong, simply different, Br/Am, that is.
> Maybe there's nothing wrong with the hearing-aid that the NHS (doctors
> and/or nurses and/or specialists and/or consultants) have provided you
> with, after all.
Right. It's a beauty -- thanks. One of my Am. friends asked me what
kind it was. I said, looking at my watch, "Four fifteen.". I had said
earlier, "... the NHS have provided me ...". I take it that the verb
sounded ok to the Br. ear. It wouldn't to the Am. ear.
> BTW I just heard a new variant on BBC Radio Four "... the theatre
> company has their funds increased ...".
OK, but the Am. might have said, "... the theatre company has *its*
funds ... And he might say, "... the theatre companies have their
funds ...". I sense that the BrEng style is changing, as in your
example. In a previous post where I listened to Ch.4 TV to find a
case in point, I heard many examples of sing. collective subj. and
sing. verb. I had to listen for 20 minutes or so before I heard
B.Walden use the plur. form. That was the exercise. I was hunting
for an example, having been mildly & nicely challenged by P.Hogben.
Ta ra.
--
Frank Cole (Am. who was taught to say, "The jury *are* in
disagreement.", and "The jury *is* unanimous.". But that was a
looooong time ago. At 0 deg West, 52 deg North, Br. wins.)
Markus Laker
Frank Cole <fr...@poco.demon.co.uk>:
> In the case of GPO, one could have a context speaking of the GPO
> in 1900 and the GPO in 1970, ie, a context discussing differences
> between the "two" GPOs. So, "The GPO in 1900 was (note sing. verb)
> a govt body which delivered post and telegrams, whereas the GPO of
> 1970 did not deliver telegrams (I'm making this up, btw). The two
> GPOs were (note plural verb) different in this regard." This verb
> usage (sing. in one case & plur. in the other) makes sense to to
> the AmEng speaker. I take it that the BrEng speaker would have
> used the plur. form each time, thus, "The GPO in 1900 were (note
> plur.) ... The two GPOs were (plur. again) ...".
No. BT _has_ been privatised[1]. Despite the Government's best
efforts, the Post Office _has_ not. The more we think of an
organisation as an impersonal monolith, the more likely we are to use a
singular verb. When we name an organisation but are really referring to
its individual members, we use a plural verb. Compare these:
The team _has_ won every game _it_ has_ played this season.
The team [= players] _have_ brought _their_ families to the game.
Perhaps one reason we often avoid the singular is that we don't like
referring to groups of people as 'it'.
[1] Privatise: sell a state-owned company into private hands in an
attempt to make money fast[2] and improve efficiency.
[2] Oops.
--
Markus Laker.
Mike Barnes
The dancing digits of Frank Cole <fr...@poco.demon.co.uk> created this
pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>In article <R+eIrjBh...@exodus.co.uk>
> news-r...@exodus.co.uk "Mike Barnes" writes:
>> The fingers of Frank Cole <fr...@poco.demon.co.uk> created this
>> pronouncement in alt.usage.english...
>> >In article <4rgqdd$q...@paperboy.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>
>> > p...@eee.nott.ac.uk "Philippa Hogben" writes:
>> >> Frank Cole <fr...@poco.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> ><snip>
>> >> >When I arrived in UK, this topic presented a problem to an AmEng speaker;
>> >> >singular subject (GPO) and plural verb (aargh!). ...
>> >[snip]
>> I used to be, like most BrE speakers, oblivious to these singular/plural
>> mismatches. ...
>
>Yes. Just as AmEng speakers may be oblivious to the "strange"
>characteristics and styles which they grew up with.
>
>> Unfortunately, I am now sensitised. But, I still regard
>> the practice as one of *abbreviation* rather than grammatical
>> sloppiness. ...
>
>I do not think of it as an abbreviation and I do not consider it a
>matter of sloppiness of any sort. It is simply a different style,
>or grammer. My point in this regard is just that it sounds strange
>to the AmEng speaker.
We'll have to disagree on the "sloppiness" issue.
One thing which I don't think has been observed before in this thread it
that the singular-noun/plural-verb construct in BrE is used where the
singular noun refers to a group of *people*. Actually you could stretch
it to include animals. But even to a BrE ear, something like "the
traffic are slowing down" or "the archipelago were flooded" would seem
very odd indeed.
Steve MacGregor
Jene tajpis lastatempe KJBlake:
> But what is an *item* in a computer file? Is a datum a record, and the
> file data?
Like most words in English, the =precise= meaning of a word in any given
context is up to the user (though he must take at least a modicum of care
that the listener or reader received the meaning that he transmitted,
through clever use of context or some such).
For me, a datum is the value assigned to a single scalar variable in a
computer program. An integer, a real number, a complex number, a character,
a string. Never mind that a complex number is a pair of reals, or that a
string is an array of characters.
A timestamp is a datum, consisting of year, month, day, hour, minute, and
fractional second. Many data make up a file. When there are so many that
you cease to count them (like counting grains of salt) and measure the
quantity, you have an amount of data (uncountable). It's all a matter of
context.
In my previous post, though, I forgot the second half of my argument, that
usages of "media", "criteria", and "phenomena" as singular are just plain
=wrong=, or at best, illiterate.
Television is =a= medium, as is the press, radio, newspapers, magazines,
and the World-Wide Web. These are news media. There are other media, such
as magnesium dioxide, charcoal, and marble.
David Vanecek
In order to further muddy the waters of the discussion of the use of
plural verbs with grammatically singular nouns, I offer the suggestion
that the American usage, "the government is" versus the British, "the
government are," is the more conservative. I offer in evidence these
lines, which flowed from the inspired pen of the incomparable GIBBON
around the year 1776:
"...the emperor restored the public credit, by delivering out good
money in exchange for the bad, which the people *was* commanded to
bring into the treasury." Compare with: "The people of Rome, ...,
demanded only bread and public shows, and *were* supplied with
both..." In this example I fail to see any distinction between the
uses of "the people"; in both cases the word is used as a collective.
"The posterity of their boldest leaders *was* contented with the rank
of citizens and soldiers." Would a modern Brit. use "The posterity
*were*"? I feel an Am. would stay with "was," despite the appearance
of plurals later in the sentence. (Of course, a _recent_ graduate,
freed from the twin demons of grammar and orthography, would probably
say "The posterities were," but spell it "posteriors," and take it to
be an old-fashioned Victorian [sic] way of saying "Their boldest
leaders contented their asses with the rank of citizens and
soldiers.")
"...the senate possessed very considerable perogatives; but in *its*
legislative capacity, in which *it* was supposed virtually to
represent the people, the rights of sovereignty were acknowleged to
reside in that assembly. Ever power was derived from *their*
authority, every law was ratified by *their* sanction. *Their*
regular meetings..." The last three uses of "their" are clearly modern
Brit. pattern. In Am. usage the singular would be used, as in the
first sentence. I cannot sense a change in meaning from collective to
individuals in this example.
"But while *they* (the senate--DV) deliberated..." (later in same
paragraph) "...that feeble assembly *was* compelled to ratify the
choice..." In this example, the "they" is, as suggested by another
post, some sort of 'logical' plural (it takes two to deliberate),
thereby demanding in modern Brit. a plural pronoun. The second
sentence of the example refers to the senate collectively, hence the
is singular correct? In Am. usage it would be "it," as in "The Senate
met this morning. It deliberated for three hours about whether to tax
the air or to merely levy a usage fee."
"'the senate *sends* you this'" (remark of an assassin to Commodus).
Gibbon is translating from Latin. In Latin, was "senatus" always
singular?
In 1789, the US Constitution uses "people" as plural "We, the people,
... *do* ordain..." Is there a shade of meaning here?
It would seem that GIBBON represents a transitional stage towards the
modern British usage, which would seem to demand the plural for "the
senate" in most cases. Curious is Gibbon's use of the singular for
"the people," which is an error in modern Am.Eng., due no doubt to its
(false?) folk meaning, the plural of "person," or as a euphemism for
"men."
As an aside, I remark that careful reading of about two hundred pages
of Gibbon has yet to reveal a sentenced terminated with a preposition.
DV
--
"A cloud of critics, of compilers, of commentators, darkened the
face of learning, and the decline of genius was soon followed
by the corruption of taste." ---Edward GIBBON.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> "'the senate *sends* you this'" (remark of an assassin to Commodus).
> Gibbon is translating from Latin. In Latin, was "senatus" always
> singular?
No, but when it was plural, it meant "senates".
"Senatus deliberat" (sing. verb) = "The senate deliberates."
"Senatus deliberant" (pl. verb) = "The senates deliberate."
It would not be grammatical in Latin to put a singular subject with a
plural verb, because Latin had much more stringent rules about nouns and
verbs agreeing in number, no doubt because it was applicable much more
often.
> In 1789, the US Constitution uses "people" as plural "We, the people,
> ... *do* ordain..." Is there a shade of meaning here?
"People" is used very commonly as the plural of "person". "He, the person,
does"; "we, the people, do".
帰aron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Aaron J. Dinkin
> "'the senate *sends* you this'" (remark of an assassin to Commodus).
> Gibbon is translating from Latin. In Latin, was "senatus" always
> singular?
No, but when it had a plural verb, it meant "senates".
Allan and/or Helen Campbell
Frank Cole <fr...@poco.demon.co.uk> rites:
>Good. Great. I think you've got it. Sing.subj./sing.verb., plu.subj./
>plu.verb. Still, I regularly hear/heard in person, on wireless, and on
>TV, and read, the plural verb in each, vis., team are, GPO are, Fords
>are, Coal Board claim, miners union win, etc.
Here down undr we jenrly use singulr; eg, "the local team has lost"; "NZ
Post has a stamp-free day" (true!). But it is not universl, and we do slip
into plural verbs with singulr nouns.
But ther is anothr developmnt, wher Maori words ar used. Wen I was yung
we wud say "_Maoris_ ar th nativ race." Nowadays almost al th media wud
say "_Maori_ ar th indijnus race." Th same has hapend with othr Maori
words: "iwi (tribe) ar," "kea (a parot) ar," etc.
In Maori, plural is shown by th articl, te = singulr, nga = plural:
"te kea," "nga kea".
Is NZ english th only one being required to folo th usaj of th
languaj its boroing th words from?
[I myt ad, its very PC to folo this new usaj.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allan Campbell Ritn in cut spelng
Bexley, Christchurch, New Zealand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keith C. Ivey
camp...@bexley.southern.co.nz (Allan and/or Helen Campbell)
wrote (using that annoying "cut spelng", which takes a few
halfhearted, inconsistent, and confusing (for example,
"indijnus" looks as if it has three syllables, and "wud" would
seem to rhyme with "mud") steps toward reforming spelling
without gaining anything worth the confusion it causes,
especially for nonanglophones):
>But ther is anothr developmnt, wher Maori words ar used. Wen I
>was yung we wud say "_Maoris_ ar th nativ race." Nowadays almost
>al th media wud say "_Maori_ ar th indijnus race." Th same has
>hapend with othr Maori words: "iwi (tribe) ar," "kea (a parot)
>ar," etc.
>In Maori, plural is shown by th articl, te = singulr, nga = plural:
>"te kea," "nga kea".
That's simply using the foreign plural (in Maori, the same form
as the singular) for the borrowed foreign word, and it's fairly
common in English:
antenna antennae
apparatus apparatus
biscotto biscotti
cactus cacti
criterion criteria
erratum errata
faux pas faux pas
index indices
lied lieder
mythos mythoi
tableau tableaux
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eei-alex.com/eye/>
Mark Odegard
Posted to alt.usage.english & e-mailed.
On 6 Jul 1996 12:21:23 GMT dvan...@third-wave.com (David
Vanecek) wrote:
>In order to further muddy the waters of the discussion of the use of
>plural verbs with grammatically singular nouns, I offer the suggestion
>that the American usage, "the government is" versus the British, "the
>government are," is the more conservative. I offer in evidence these
>lines, which flowed from the inspired pen of the incomparable GIBBON
>around the year 1776:
>"...the emperor restored the public credit, by delivering out good
>money in exchange for the bad, which the people *was* commanded to
>bring into the treasury." Compare with: "The people of Rome, ...,
>demanded only bread and public shows, and *were* supplied with
>both..." In this example I fail to see any distinction between the
>uses of "the people"; in both cases the word is used as a collective.
Neither do I, but the first example clanks in my ear.
>"The posterity of their boldest leaders *was* contented with the rank
>of citizens and soldiers." Would a modern Brit. use "The posterity
>*were*"? I feel an Am. would stay with "was," despite the appearance
>of plurals later in the sentence.
If you recast to "Their boldest leaders' posterity was. .
", then "was" works, at least to my ear. As it stands, I
scan it to mean "The posterity of *each* of their boldest
leaders *was* . . . ". I would have written this with
"were".
>(Of course, a _recent_ graduate,
>freed from the twin demons of grammar and orthography, would probably
>say "The posterities were," but spell it "posteriors," and take it to
>be an old-fashioned Victorian [sic] way of saying "Their boldest
>leaders contented their asses with the rank of citizens and
>soldiers.")
A withering Whiggish witticism. 8-)
>"...the senate possessed very considerable perogatives; but in *its*
>legislative capacity, in which *it* was supposed virtually to
>represent the people, the rights of sovereignty were acknowleged to
>reside in that assembly. Ever power was derived from *their*
>authority, every law was ratified by *their* sanction. *Their*
>regular meetings..." The last three uses of "their" are clearly modern
>Brit. pattern. In Am. usage the singular would be used, as in the
>first sentence. I cannot sense a change in meaning from collective to
>individuals in this example.
"The Senate is in session today. They are expected to pass
some resolutions."
There is the constitutional body, and then there are those
100 mostly meretricious pornocrats who *constitute* the
Senate.
>"But while *they* (the senate--DV) deliberated..." (later in same
>paragraph) "...that feeble assembly *was* compelled to ratify the
>choice..." In this example, the "they" is, as suggested by another
>post, some sort of 'logical' plural (it takes two to deliberate),
>thereby demanding in modern Brit. a plural pronoun. The second
>sentence of the example refers to the senate collectively, hence the
>is singular correct? In Am. usage it would be "it," as in "The Senate
>met this morning. It deliberated for three hours about whether to tax
>the air or to merely levy a usage fee."
Another example, a Presbyterian one. "The Session was called
to approve a contract for some foundation work to the
church; they approved the contract."
The Session is the members of the congregation voting as the
ultimate governing authority of that particular parish.
However, they are a body of people, and you refer to them
and "they", even though the Session itself is a singular.
--
Mark Odegard. Ode...@ptel.net
Allan and/or Helen Campbell
Keith C Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> rites:
>camp...@bexley.southern.co.nz (Allan Campbell)
>wrote (using that annoying "cut spelng", which takes a few
>halfhearted, inconsistent, and confusing (for example,
>"indijnus" looks as if it has three syllables, and "wud" would
>seem to rhyme with "mud") steps toward reforming spelling
>without gaining anything worth the confusion it causes,
>especially for nonanglophones):
Yes, it can be confusing until one gets used to it. [That hole
sentence, BTW, is also in cut spelng.] Remembr, its not a final
reform: it is merely getng rid of som rubish, clearng th way for
mor later chanjes. As its based on curent orthografy, ther ar bound
to be som oditis.
>>But ther is anothr developmnt, wher Maori words ar used. Wen I
>>was yung we wud say "_Maoris_ ar th nativ race." Nowadays almost
>>al th media wud say "_Maori_ ar th indijnus race." Th same has
>>hapend with othr Maori words: "iwi (tribe) ar," "kea (a parot)
>>ar," etc.
>>In Maori, plural is shown by th articl, te = singulr, nga = plural:
>>"te kea," "nga kea".
>That's simply using the foreign plural (in Maori, the same form
>as the singular) for the borrowed foreign word, and it's fairly
>common in English:
>
> antenna antennae
I prefer antennas (antenas)
> apparatus apparatus apparatuses (apratuss)
> biscotto biscotti
> cactus cacti cactuses (cactuss)
> criterion criteria
> erratum errata
> faux pas faux pas
> index indices indexes (indexs)
> lied lieder
> mythos mythoi
> tableau tableaux tableaus (tablaus)
Thanks for th info. As u can se, I tend to prefer anglicized
versions. But th point is taken.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allan Campbell Ritn in cut spelng
Bexley, Christchurch, New Zealand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frank Cole
In article <Pine.LNX.3.92.960628...@raven.cybercomm.net>
jha...@raven.cybercomm.net "Jim Harris" writes:
<snip>
> I've forwarded the post from our newsgroup; ...
<snip>
> James Kass wrote:
>
> I am designing a playbill and posters for a theatre group called "The
> Backstage Players". Please tell me which of the following is correct:
>
> "The Backstage Players Proudly Presents"
> -- or --
> "The Backstage Players Proudly Present"
This one is easy. Count the number of US voters, count the number of
British voters. Winner takes all (I say), ie, "Presents". But, when
they/it are/is on tour, use "Present" in Britain (they/it can use
either in the west country) and use "Presents" in US (they/it can use
eether in the mid-west). Or, get a big promoter, like Saul Hurok,
then they/it can use S.HUROK PRESENTS - 50 GIRLS 50 - LIVE AND BACKST
oops ON STAGE
> The group has been arguing about this for quite some time and would
Yes, has! ^^^
> apprieciate clarification. Thanks-- James
>
> Boyd Campbell replies:
>
> "The Backstage Players" are one group so it should be "The Backstage
No! "is", dummy. ^^^
> Players Presents" just as if it were "Bob Presents". or "Warner
> Brothers Studios Presents".
Harry and Mort Warner fell out with each other in 1923 over an argument
about whether it should be "Warner Brothers' Studios Presents", "Warner
Brothers Present", "Warner Brothers Studios Presents", etc., and never
spoke to each other after that. They were victimized, actually,
because neither of them could read English. It was their lawyers who
had the arguments. They resolved it by forming two companies, one in
California and one in Tijuana, Mexico, each named "Warner Brother"
One was "Inc." and the other was "SA". From then on, they used
"Warner Brothers Present". The lawyers then bought Hillcrest Country
Club on Pico Blvd. and retired.
Do you know what S. Hurok and the Warner Bros, would do? I'll tell
you. They would think about the passers by, the readers of their
playbills, and they would say, "How would that schmuck read it?",
"What would make a quick easy read for that young couple?", "How
would that university student read it?". Note. we are talking
reading, not writing -- quick, easy reading. This is the tough
problem. We are not good enough to do that. So, we would do the
only sensible thing and use "The Back...Present", since the passer
by is not going to analyze "Players" properly. At an uninformed
quick glance, he will read it as plural and plural verb will roll
through his mind with ease. I can see it now on 42nd St.:
The BackStage Players P-R-O-U-D-L-Y Present
The Seething Seas Ceaseth
the MELODRAMATIC - LAFF RIOT
by Dunny Saks
Starring JIMMY KASS
Music by Sunny Days & His Canadian Pennsylvanians
--
Frank Cole
Frank Cole
In article <4rllo3$6...@news.third-wave.com>
dvan...@third-wave.com "David Vanecek" writes:
> In order to further muddy the waters of the discussion of the use of
> plural verbs with grammatically singular nouns, I offer the suggestion
> that the American usage, "the government is" versus the British, "the
> government are," is the more conservative. ...
May I point out that the word "government" as generally used in the
two countries has different meanings. Britain has a Tory (political
party) "government"; US has a Democrat (political party)
"administration".
US has a "government", it is specified in the Constitution, it changes
maybe a few times each century, and not by popular vote. US has an
"administration" which in a few aspects is functionally analogous to
the British "government" and can change at 4-year intervals.
In reference to the sing/plur verb issue, The British government is a
group of people (plural) performing (or not) various functions. The
US government is a constitutional system (singular).
But it is muddied, as suggested, since the American will often (usually?)
use the word "government" when referring to those awful people
(irrespective of political party) in Washington (D.C.) who may be in
either the Executive "administration" or the Legislative Congress.
--
Frank Cole
Frank Cole
In article <83672317...@bexley.southern.co.nz>
camp...@bexley.southern.co.nz "Allan and/or Helen Campbell" writes:
<snip>
> Here down undr we jenrly use singulr; eg, "the local team has lost"; "NZ
> Post has a stamp-free day" (true!). But it is not universl, and we do slip
> into plural verbs with singulr nouns.
Shame! Sounds like dangerous reversion to me.
BTW, may I be silly (not uncommon!) and ask: Is "A. and/or H.C. writes"
ok, or do we have to say "A. and/or H.C. write/writes", or maybe "A.
and/or H.C. write(s)"? I think we should be told.
--
Frank Cole [He with the AmEng ear; it does stand out!]
Aaron J. Dinkin
What is _with_ you people? The English use plural verbs with singular
nouns (the troupe present); some of my fellow Americans use singular verbs
with plural nouns (the players presents). Why can't you just make the
subject and the verb agree in number? This is not a discussion of
semantics; it does not matter whether the plural noun represents a
singular unit or the singular noun represents an assortment of people. We
say "everyone is", although "everyone" undeniably refers to more than one
person, because it is morphologically singular and therefore takes a
singular verb! We say, "My pants are ripped," even though "pants" is
undeniably a single object, and we do this because "pants" is a plural
noun and takes a plural verb! Why can't we all just AGREE?
(Sorry, had to get that out of my system.)
Gregory Resch
flu...@gov.on.ca (Dave Fluri) writes:
> I just thought I'd complicate this discussion a bit more as a service to the
> loyal readers of this thread
> When I was in school I was taught that the proper verb for a collective noun
> was singular unless one sought to emphasise a division among the ranks of
> the group. For example:
> The committee was unanimous in endorsing...
> BUT
> The committee were divided on the issue of...
LISTEN: If we want to hear from people who know what they're talking about,
WE'LL LET YOU KNOW!
As you can see from perusing the majority of articles in a.u.e , this
newsgroup is mainly for postings by people who had execrable educations
and now think they can make up for it by asking the world to remedy their
deficiencies in English--not to mention, in thinking--for free. (Including:
"Please reply by e-mail; I never read this group.")
> Put that one in your pipe and smoke it!
You, too, buster! Just take your schmancy-fancy learning someplace else!
--
Dave Fluri
I just thought I'd complicate this discussion a bit more as a service to the
When I was in school I was taught that the proper verb for a collective noun
was singular unless one sought to emphasise a division among the ranks of
the group. For example:
The committee was unanimous in endorsing...
BUT
The committee were divided on the issue of...
Put that one in your pipe and smoke it!
Cheers!
|
Dave Fluri | "Sereno y desprendido, me dejara
North Bay, Ontario, Canada | el aguila, pasar a la libertad."
| -Carlos Castaneda
|
Markus Laker
r...@usa1.com (Aaron J. Dinkin):
> What is _with_ you people? The English use plural verbs with singular
> nouns (the troupe present); some of my fellow Americans use singular verbs
> with plural nouns (the players presents). Why can't you just make the
> subject and the verb agree in number?
As in:
One hundred and fifty people turned up. The first hundred was
accommodated, the rest was not.
The happy couple walks down the aisle smiling to its friends.
I don't have enough formal grammar to back this statement up, but in
'the team have brought their families' I intuitively feel that 'team'
works like 'couple': each of them refers to a group of people and,
logically if not grammatically, requires a plural verb. Perhaps Brits
are happy to treat 'team' as a collective noun while Americans are not.
You are as always welcome to prove me wrong.
Truly: are there any places left in your IISGDISOAG?
> (Sorry, had to get that out of my system.)
Best place for it, mate. :-)
--
Markus Laker.
Steve MacGregor
Jene tajpis lastatempe Aaron J. Dinkin:
> What is _with_ you people? The English use plural verbs with singular
> nouns (the troupe present); some of my fellow Americans use singular verbs
> with plural nouns (the players presents). Why can't you just make the
> subject and the verb agree in number?
Or, we could just do it logically. Would you, for example, say "Our
calvinball team is going to play their first game tomorrow"? If so, then
you're confused as to whether "team" is singular (taking the singular verb,
"is") or plural (referred to by a plural pronoun, "their").
At least the Brits don't mix the numbers like this. They'd say, "Our team
are going to play their first game tomorrow", with both the verb and the
pronoun being plural.
--
--------------------------------------------------
Help stamp out, eliminate, and abolish redundancy!
--------------------------------------------------
Truly Donovan
Markus Laker wrote:
>
> Truly: are there any places left in your IISGDISOAG?
As it happens, yes. The admission criterion is that it has to sound
good to *me*, which, allowing for cultural differences (no culture
centricity here except when I say so), you generally manage to do, so
you're in.
Truly Donovan
Jango I 5
Gregory Resch said "people who had execrable educations".
Shouldn't it be "education"?
Will Towers
Anno Siegel
Markus Laker <la...@tcp.co.uk> wrote on alt.usage.english:
[...]
>Truly: are there any places left in your IISGDISOAG?
If It Sounds Good....
That's all I can decode. Someone please explain.
Anno
KEVIN WARE
In article <31E2E1...@lunemere.com>,
on Tue, 09 Jul 1996 16:47:04 -0600,
Truly Donovan <Truly> writes:
>Markus Laker wrote:
>>
>> Truly: are there any places left in your IISGDISOAG?
>
>good to *me*, which, allowing for cultural differences (no culture
>centricity here except when I say so), you generally manage to do, so
>you're in.
>
>Truly Donovan
Oh Markus, do not fall into this trap. Admission into Trulys' IISGDISOAG
can (and probably will) be rescinded at her,not inconsiderable, will.
I know I was in and out of it several times in lives past.
Hi Truly and Geoff -- IBMTEXT lives on
Markus Laker
anno...@lublin.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Anno Siegel):
> >Truly: are there any places left in your IISGDISOAG?
>
> If It Sounds Good....
Sorry, Anno: it was a reference to a recent posting of Truly's that you
evidently haven't seen (yet), in which she mentioned her If It Sounds
Good Do It School Of Applied Grammar.
--
Markus Laker.
Truly Donovan
>
> If It Sounds Good....
>
If-it-sounds-good-do-it School of Applied Grammar.
Truly Donovan, foundress
Truly Donovan
KEVIN WARE wrote:
>
> In article <31E2E1...@lunemere.com>,
> on Tue, 09 Jul 1996 16:47:04 -0600,
> Truly Donovan <Truly> writes:
> >Markus Laker wrote:
> >>
> >
> >good to *me*, which, allowing for cultural differences (no culture
> >centricity here except when I say so), you generally manage to do, so
> >you're in.
> >
> >Truly Donovan
>
> Oh Markus, do not fall into this trap. Admission into Trulys' IISGDISOAG
> can (and probably will) be rescinded at her,not inconsiderable, will.
> I know I was in and out of it several times in lives past.
I have no recollection of this person every having been admitted to my
IISGDISOAG, let alone some place called "Trulys' IISGDISOAG."
Truly Donovan
David Lewis
In article <4rtpdk$r...@govonca3.gov.on.ca>, Dave Fluri
<flu...@gov.on.ca> writes
>I just thought I'd complicate this discussion a bit more as a service to the
>loyal readers of this thread ;)
>
>When I was in school I was taught that the proper verb for a collective noun
>was singular unless one sought to emphasise a division among the ranks of
>the group. For example:
>
> The committee was unanimous in endorsing...
>
> BUT
>
> The committee were divided on the issue of...
>
>Put that one in your pipe and smoke it!
>
--
David Lewis
Dean S. Eveland
Stev...@InDirect.Com (Steve MacGregor) wrote:
>Jene tajpis lastatempe Aaron J. Dinkin:
>
>> What is _with_ you people? The English use plural verbs with singular
>> nouns (the troupe present); some of my fellow Americans use singular verbs
>> with plural nouns (the players presents). Why can't you just make the
>> subject and the verb agree in number?
>
> Or, we could just do it logically. Would you, for example, say "Our
>calvinball team is going to play their first game tomorrow"? If so, then
>you're confused as to whether "team" is singular (taking the singular verb,
>"is") or plural (referred to by a plural pronoun, "their").
> At least the Brits don't mix the numbers like this. They'd say, "Our team
>are going to play their first game tomorrow", with both the verb and the
>pronoun being plural.
>--
a team at all. By the way, "team" is a managerial, newthink buzzword in
the US. It is really overused.
--
Dean
-----
O wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as ithers
see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An foolish notion;
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us, An' ev'n devotion!
Robert Burns, "To a Louse: On Seeing a Lady's Bonnet at Church"
Timur Kadyshev
> >"...the emperor restored the public credit, by delivering out good
> >money in exchange for the bad, which the people *was* commanded to
> >bring into the treasury." Compare with: "The people of Rome, ...,
> >demanded only bread and public shows, and *were* supplied with
> >both..." In this example I fail to see any distinction between the
> >uses of "the people"; in both cases the word is used as a collective.
two different meanings of the same word. In the first case "people" means
"nation, Demos." Whereas in the second one it means "inhabitants, citizens."
-- Timur.
Geoff Butler
In article <no+rSCAl...@nodanw.demon.co.uk>, David Lewis
<da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>It should still be the committee was
Now there's an example of a sentence that would benefit from a quotation
mark or two.
-ler
Steve MacGregor
Jene tajpis lastatempe Geoff Butler:
> Now there's an example of a sentence that would benefit from a quotation
> mark or two.
Well, they =do= tend to travel in pairs.
David Lewis
In article <IEmhJdAR...@gbutler.demon.co.uk>, Geoff Butler
<ge...@gbutler.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <no+rSCAl...@nodanw.demon.co.uk>, David Lewis
><da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>It should still be the committee was
>
>mark or two.
>
Why? I wasn't quoting, just making a statement! All right, if you
really do wish to be pedantic I will, in future, place quotation marks
around the required text. Next question, where will you put the full
stop, inside or outside the quotation marks? This will keep this thread
alive. :-)
--
David Lewis
Matthew Rabuzzi
Jim Harris <jha...@raven.cybercomm.net> and/or James Kass writes:
: Please tell me which of the following is correct:
: "The Backstage Players Proudly Presents"
:
: Boyd Campbell replies:
:
: "The Backstage Players" are one group so it should be "The Backstage
: Brothers Studios Presents".
Boyd undermines his own argument at the outset:
: "The Backstage Players" **are** ... (plural verb)
so it should be
"The Backstage Players Present" (plural verb)
...............................................
Wouldn't say moo to a ghost
Matthew Rabuzzi
Markus Laker
David Lewis <da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk>:
> All right, if you
> really do wish to be pedantic ...
Of course! This is a.u.e!
> ... I will, in future, place quotation marks
> around the required text. Next question, where will you put the full
> stop, inside or outside the quotation marks? This will keep this thread
> alive. :-)
It can join the other two on the same subject. Since the quoted
material is short and doesn't contain a full stop, and since you're a
Brit, the thing to say is this:
It should stil be 'the committee was'.
Americans have different rules, and most would probably place the full
stop inside the quotes, which would be doubled, like "this."
--
Markus Laker.
Joseph Chacko
In article <no+rSCAl...@nodanw.demon.co.uk>
da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk "David Lewis" writes:
> In article <4rtpdk$r...@govonca3.gov.on.ca>, Dave Fluri
> <flu...@gov.on.ca> writes
> >I just thought I'd complicate this discussion a bit more as a service to the
> >loyal readers of this thread ;)
> >
> >When I was in school I was taught that the proper verb for a collective noun
> >was singular unless one sought to emphasise a division among the ranks of
> >the group. For example:
> >
> > The committee was unanimous in endorsing...
> >
> > BUT
> >
> > The committee were divided on the issue of...
> >
> >Put that one in your pipe and smoke it!
> >
> It should still be the committee was (whatever the emphasis!)
No, no, no.
The committee were divided...
The cake were cut up...
The planet were blasted to smi...
The person were sawn in halves.
--
Psst
KEVIN WARE
In article <31E42D...@lunemere.com>,
on Wed, 10 Jul 1996 16:21:57 -0600,
Truly Donovan <Truly> writes:
>KEVIN WARE wrote:
>>
>> In article <31E2E1...@lunemere.com>,
>> on Tue, 09 Jul 1996 16:47:04 -0600,
>> Truly Donovan <Truly> writes:
>> >Markus Laker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Truly: are there any places left in your IISGDISOAG?
>> >
>> >As it happens, yes. The admission criterion is that it has to sound
>> >good to *me*, which, allowing for cultural differences (no culture
>> >centricity here except when I say so), you generally manage to do, so
>> >you're in.
>> >
>> >Truly Donovan
>>
>> Oh Markus, do not fall into this trap. Admission into Trulys' IISGDISOAG
>> can (and probably will) be rescinded at her,not inconsiderable, will.
>> I know I was in and out of it several times in lives past.
>
>I have no recollection of this person every having been admitted to my
>IISGDISOAG, let alone some place called "Trulys' IISGDISOAG."
>
>Truly Donovan
Truly, I realize I flunked out of your school many times, But to "disavow
all knowledge of my existence" cuts me to the quick. I remember a summer
afternoon in Boulder at a mutual acquintance's house beside the pool and
a long discussion of dogs and the "south end of north bound cows".
Perhaps my full name would help.
I remember you fondly and if you talk to McGrumpo give hime my best.
Kevin P. Ware (formerly of IBM)
David Lewis
In article <31e569c5...@news.tcp.co.uk>, Markus Laker
<la...@tcp.co.uk> writes
>
> It should stil be 'the committee was'.
>
>Americans have different rules, and most would probably place the full
>stop inside the quotes, which would be doubled, like "this."
>
>
single quotes tend to be used for emphasis or instead of '(sic).' I
imagine that not many people who highlight words using single quotes
actually know why they're doing so! Believe me, in my line of work I
see a great deal of this misuse of quotes.
The full stop goes inside the quotation mark when we write direct
speech, at least it does when I write it. It goes outside when quoting
the name of a newspaper or a show, e.g, "The Music Man". My rule of
thumb is that if the sentence is completed within the confines of the
quotation, then the full stop is part of the quotation and is,
therefore, included within the quotation marks. If it is not part of
the quotation then it would go outside.
However, I have to say this is what I have always done. I shall now
have to beg, borrow or buy a grammar text book to confirm, or deny, what
I have always fondly believed. :-)
--
David Lewis
Geoff Butler
In article <ILO8JCAl...@nodanw.demon.co.uk>, David Lewis
<da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <IEmhJdAR...@gbutler.demon.co.uk>, Geoff Butler
><ge...@gbutler.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <no+rSCAl...@nodanw.demon.co.uk>, David Lewis
>><da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>
>>mark or two.
>>
>>-ler
>
>really do wish to be pedantic I will, in future, place quotation marks
>around the required text. Next question, where will you put the full
>stop, inside or outside the quotation marks? This will keep this thread
>alive. :-)
Since you ask, I prefer to put the punctuation /in the most convenient
place/.
-ler
Gregory Resch
la...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker) writes:
> ...Since the quoted material is short and doesn't contain a full stop,
> and since you're a Br*t, the thing to say is this:
>
> It should stil be 'the committee was'.
>
> Americans have different rules, and most would probably place the full
> stop inside the quotes, which would be doubled, like "this."
Well, these days most Americans might, but not for the reason you imply.
The quoted words do not form a complete sentence, so I'd (like to) think
that any English-speaker would choose to put the full stop unambiguously
after the quotation-mark, like "this".
--
Rools? ROOLS? We dahn' nee' no steenkeen ROOLS!
Truly Donovan
Oh, I remember you -- I just didn't think the person I remembered would
be capable of saying "*Trulys'*" inasmuch as I am the only Truly
involved.
Aren't you the one with the Rhodesian Ridgebacks?
McGrumpo & company should be bracing themselves for the onslaught of the
Olympics-crazed Atlanta-bound right about now. From the traffic jams I
saw the last time I was in Marietta, no one will actually be able to get
into Atlanta; they'll all be tied up in the suburbs.
Truly Donovan
Tony Xenos and company
On 12 Jul 1996, Gregory Resch wrote:
> The quoted words do not form a complete sentence, so I'd (like to) think
> that any English-speaker would choose to put the full stop unambiguously
> after the quotation-mark, like "this".
Nevertheless, Americans have been taught by their prescriptivist teachers
that the end mark always goes inside the quotation marks. This apparently
originated when printing presses became common. With movable type, if you
float a period with no nearby support, as above, it is very likely to
break. The solution was to put it inside the quotes, where it would feel
less pressure. While this is no longer relevant, the "rule" is still
observed almost universally in what we call "America."
Craig
--
Tony Xenos Craig A. Butz
10 Hocking Street 2498 Mineral Road
Athens, Ohio 45701 New Marshfield, Ohio 45766-9747
614.593.8746 614.664.6401
Myles Paulson
In article <31e569c5...@news.tcp.co.uk>, Markus Laker (la...@tcp.co.uk) writes:
>David Lewis <da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk>:
>
>> All right, if you
>> really do wish to be pedantic ...
>
>Of course! This is a.u.e!
>
>> around the required text. Next question, where will you put the full
>> stop, inside or outside the quotation marks? This will keep this thread
>> alive. :-)
>
>material is short and doesn't contain a full stop, and since you're a
>
> It should stil be 'the committee was'.
>
>Americans have different rules, and most would probably place the full
>stop inside the quotes, which would be doubled, like "this."
We must have different rules in Oz again. We double the "l" is
"stil" as well. Oh well, vive la difference.
--
Myles Paulson <xexr...@wackydoo.dialix.oz.au>
A little moony night, three in threel
Rob Pegoraro
In article <Pine.HPP.3.91c.96071...@hpplus04.cern.ch>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@mail.cern.ch> wrote:
[previous exchanges deleted]
>I find this little short of bizarre. USA, the land of the free,
>feels itself hidebound to a rule that is based solely on the
>limitations of technology? Show a little freedom, folks! When the
>manual says:
>
> type the command "FILE."
>
>and I type the command "FILE." and it says "unknown command 'FILE.'",
>surely there is something wrong?
Speaking of the limitations of technology... the dilemma you spell out
there didn't exist until the invention of computer operating systems that
used command-line syntax. With luck, technology will solve this problem it
created--you have no such confusion with graphical user interfaces or
voice-recognition systems.
But, yes, that punctuation rule is a major problem, one I deal with at
work all the time. Lately, we've started putting commands in either
italics, bold or a sans-serif font; the only other option is to structure
sentences so a command in quotes never comes at the end of a sentence. You
can count on your readers seizing on any possible misinterpretation of
your instructions--anybody who's ever had to write listserv subscription
advice will know what I mean.
>> .. While this is no longer relevant, the "rule" is still
>> observed almost universally in what we call "America."
>
>Hmmm. I think you are talking not about South America, nor Central
>America, nor indeed about the whole of North America (whose French
>speaking population probably have little interest in our frivolities),
>but specifically with the USA. Whether or not that includes Hawaii and
>Alaska...
Not to be pedantic or anything :), but the phrase "what we call 'America.'
" can only be read as indicating the United States of America. (If he'd
written "the US," would you have asked if he meant the United States of
Mexico? :)
ro...@cais.com ====================================================
Rob Pegoraro At work, I'm r...@twp.com, but
Washington, D.C., USA I'm only speaking for myself here
======================================== http://www.cais.com/robp/
Matthew Rabuzzi
KEVIN WARE <KW...@AOL.COM> writes:
: Truly, I realize I flunked out of your school many times, ...
: I remember you fondly and if you talk to McGrumpo give hime my best.
:
: Kevin P. Ware (formerly of IBM)
All very interesting I'm sure -- but isn't this what private email is for?
........................
Quotemeal-Raisin Cookies
Matthew Rabuzzi
Markus Laker
xexr...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au (Myles Paulson):
> We must have different rules in Oz again. We double the "l" is
> "stil" as well. Oh well, vive la difference.
I'm trying to create a new, British spelling, by analogy with 'distil',
'instil' and all the rest of them.
Alternative explanation: several weeks ago I upgraded to the commercial
version of Agent, the main attraction being the spelling checker --
which I've remembered to use, ooh, about three times since then.
(I now find that Agent, even with its British dictionary in place,
rejects the correct British spelling of 'distil'. So much for spelling
checkers.)
--
Markus Laker.
Richard L. Brown
In article <31ea71c...@news.tcp.co.uk>, la...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker) writes:
>(I now find that Agent, even with its British dictionary in place,
>rejects the correct British spelling of 'distil'. So much for spelling
>checkers.)
I thought the proper British way for spelling checkers was "draughts".
Rich "Chancellor of the Ex-Checker" Brown
--
Richard L. Brown Office of Information Services
rbr...@ccmail.uwsa.edu University of Wisconsin System Administration
rlbr...@facstaff.wisc.edu 780 Regent St., Rm. 246 / Madison, WI 53715
Alan J. Flavell
On Sat, 13 Jul 1996, Tony Xenos and company wrote:
> On 12 Jul 1996, Gregory Resch wrote:
>
> > The quoted words do not form a complete sentence, so I'd (like to) think
> > that any English-speaker would choose to put the full stop unambiguously
> > after the quotation-mark, like "this".
>
> Nevertheless, Americans have been taught by their prescriptivist teachers
> that the end mark always goes inside the quotation marks.
(limitations of technology deleted)
I find this little short of bizarre. USA, the land of the free,
feels itself hidebound to a rule that is based solely on the
limitations of technology? Show a little freedom, folks! When the
manual says:
type the command "FILE."
and I type the command "FILE." and it says "unknown command 'FILE.'",
surely there is something wrong?
> .. While this is no longer relevant, the "rule" is still
> observed almost universally in what we call "America."
Hmmm. I think you are talking not about South America, nor Central
America, nor indeed about the whole of North America (whose French
speaking population probably have little interest in our frivolities),
but specifically with the USA. Whether or not that includes Hawaii and
Alaska...
best regards
Brought to you by fully refurbished pre-owned electrons.
Truly Donovan
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> When the
> manual says:
>
> type the command "FILE."
>
> and I type the command "FILE." and it says "unknown command 'FILE.'",
> surely there is something wrong?
Ah, the same wheezy old chestnut. Can't you guys come up with a more
original complaint, inasmuch as we all know that any writer worth
keeping around wouldn't have written it that way in the first place?
Truly Donovan
Gregory Resch
Tony Xenos and company <ax82...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> writes:
> Nevertheless, Americans have been taught by their prescriptivist teachers
> that the end mark always goes inside the quotation marks. This apparently
> originated when printing presses became common....the "rule" is still
> observed almost universally in what we call "America."
What a charmingly anachronistic non-sequitur! Such concise but grand and
sweeping over-generalizations!
> --
> Tony Xenos Craig A. Butz
> 10 Hocking Street 2498 Mineral Road
> Athens, Ohio 45701 New Marshfield, Ohio 45766-9747
For readers outside the U.S.: Ohio is commonly held to exemplify all
things American--but only by Ohioans.
--
vax2.concordia.ca
I heard him say "That's all". Period here since *I heard* is the subject.
hh
In article <resch.8...@cpcug.org>, re...@cpcug.org (Gregory Resch) writes...
Meliss6789
camp...@bexley.southern.co.nz (Allan and/or Helen Campbell) wrote:
> Keith C Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> rites:
>
> >camp...@bexley.southern.co.nz (Allan Campbell)
> >wrote (using that annoying "cut spelng", which takes a few
> >halfhearted, inconsistent, and confusing (for example,
> >"indijnus" looks as if it has three syllables, and "wud" would
> >seem to rhyme with "mud") steps toward reforming spelling
> >without gaining anything worth the confusion it causes,
> >especially for nonanglophones):
>
> Yes, it can be confusing until one gets used to it. [That hole
> sentence, BTW, is also in cut spelng.] Remembr, its not a final
> reform: it is merely getng rid of som rubish, clearng th way for
> mor later chanjes. [....]
What!? Oh, and I had the delusion that something as drastic as this (Ct
Splng) was meant to be the *final thing.* You mean you're gonna cut *even
more* after this?
Splng rfrmrs hav always wanted to cut *silent* letters, but Ct Splng, for
reasons I'll never understand, cuts even letters *that are pronounced.*
The simplistic solution: Children have trouble spelling schwas because of
all the different ways it can be represented. The solution? Ban *any*
depiction of the schwa. So we get 97 consonants running together in a
spellllnng like "permnnt." Yeah, that makes things more clear, simple,
and easy.
It makes me pine for the good old days when all reformers asked you to do
was accept "thru" for "through."
I think the best assessment of this ran about a month and a half ago, and
it's worth running again (Thanks again, Bob, for saving all of these):
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: "Cut Spelng" - an opinion
From: Andrew Ketley <aj...@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 00:58:18 +0100
I haven't seen any real discussion of this yet (maybe i don't read often
enough?); the argument seems very polarised. In the blue corner Allan
Campbell ("Alan Cambul"? :-) ) fights a lone battle against the massed
ranks of such as Markus Laker and Matthew Rabuzzi in the red...
No offense intended to either party; I merely want to launch an opinion
into the void and see what comes of it.
I'll start by making my own bias clear: I like English orthography; it's
mad eccentricity appeals to me, and I would keep to it, complete with my
own idiosyncratic blunders and the ridicule I get for making them, even
if a simplified system gained popular acceptance.
If English were merely the tongue of England and her former colonies,
then I'd have little hesitation about rejecting any reform utterly - if
nothing else, to do so in many cases would be tantamount to erasing the
last traces of the language's origins. Know < cnawan is one example that
springs to mind.
It is, however, the de facto lingua franca of a very large part of the
world, and is very frequently used simly because it is often the only
language non-native speakers have in common. In these instances the
orthography presents a considerable barrier to written communication, and
a source of no little frustration. "Manchester is what you write, but
Liverpool is what you say," as the Russians like to grumble.
"Cut Spelng" represents a great improvement over failures such as the set
of 32 (non-latin) signs mooted near the beginningof this century, and
also in my view over the ?"Niu gyd to speling" in its gradual approach;
but is still far from perfect.
I have taken a sample of Allan Campbell's typing to point out what seem
to me to be inadequacies. I'm basing my observations on the assumption
that Allan has stuck without error to the CS system; this may or may not
be justified. Allan or anyone else is invited to criticise my remarks.
> I don't no(1a) that CS has reachd(2) "movemnt"(3a) status - yet. Th
numbrs(3b) of adhernts(3c) at th moment wud(1b) not be gret(4), as far as
I no. Over th(6) past decade or so in-depth reserch has gon into its
developmnt in preparation for publishng(5) and promoting(5) it.
(1) While there are already a considerable number of words that share
spellingss in English, introducing more is a bad idea: while new learners
would (eventually) have little difficulty; established speakers could be
confused, especially those who are not proficient.
eg: If you no him -> ?*"If you are not he"?
Establishing a seperate spelling, as in (1b), is safer, if possible.
(2) The formation of the imperfect in -ed is one of the very few rules in
English with near universal validity. _Why create exceptions?_
(3) Neutral vowels are difficult. Where vowel weakening has effectively
created a syllabic consonant - eg dead_en_ed - then eliminating the vowel
is acceptable. However, given that some vowels in English are merely
signs that affect the pronounciation of other vowels - a problem that CS
does not address - such elimination reinforces existing ambiguity. (3a)
might possibly be /movehm@nt/ if the element "move" were not recognised
as such; and (3c) in particular, if I didn't recognised the general shape
of the word, I would read as "adhurnts". (3b) is perfectly acceptable,
apart from the fact that r is now representing two sounds, where it only
represented one (or was silent) before. Even in the final position,
however, r is still pronounced before a following vowel - "better offers"
- and making r represent schwa ("prettir") is just plain silly in this
respect.
(4) Stupid. "Gret" means nothing; it rymes with "get". The standard
representations for /ei/ in English are aCe, where C is any consonant,
and ai . If you don't intend changing these, then _use them_: "grate",
or, better still "grait", which avoids the ambiguity.
(5) Inconsistent. Firstly, the i has been eliminated in one place and
kept in another; secondly, i is by no means a neutral vowel; and thirdly,
-ing is a reflex with _absolutely no exception_, and is _phonetically
consistent_. It therefore requires no alteration.
(6) The e in the has two pronounciations; "th" assumes that it is always
schwa. /dh@ ap@l/ is a mistake on which all children learning to read and
many choir singers have to be corrected.
Point (1) above is very debatable, since in any perfectly consistent
system, homophonic words can only be given different spellings if the
system has a high level of alphabetical redunancy. The rest, however, I
stand by.
Introducing a simplified spelling system is difficult task, but not an
impossible one, as the American experience shows, albeit that the
American spelling reforms did not have to contend with as entrenched and
unvarying a standard as the modern one, and that they were aided by a
popular desire to break away from the Old World. For all that we Brits
like to lambast the Yanks for their inability to spell, the American
simplifications are logical and reasonable - Allan might take heart from
that.
However, any such attempt inevitably runs up against the seemingly
insurmountable problem of the many to many mapping of English
orthography: how can the conflicting aims of establishing a one to one
mapping and not straying too far from the current system be reconciled?
Clearly a phonetic system where ai=/ai/ not /ei/ is the most efficient,
but is not going to be accepted by the umpteen million people who don't
give a brass farthing for phonetics. The first stage, I think, should be
an attempt to reduce the number of different sounds that letters can
represent. For example:
(1) Replace all y=/i/ with i, and all y=/i:/ with ie: angrie, lovlie
(2) Replace all ay=/ei/ with ai: dai, awai
(3) Wait till change becomes accepted.
(4) Replace all iCe=/ai/C with yC: tyd, wyd.
(5) Replace all aCe=/ei/C with aiC: make, maid, swaied
...
Another useful step would be to sort s and z out, which could be done
fairly easily by extending the coverage of z, and/or replacing s=/s/ with
ss; but this runs into the problem of s=/s,/ as in (Brit RP) issue, sure
(~"issyu", ~"syur").
There is clearly a place for a simplified spelling system, but I fear CS
is not yet it.
_______
Well, it's long, but it's pretty much (too much?) everything I've got to
say on the matter; I hope it sparks some discussion: it's definitely an
aue topic. Allan in particular, since you're the major advocate of CS in
this group, I'd like to know whether you think any of what I have said is
justified.
Regards,
AndrewK
(I'm off to bed.)
Alan J. Flavell
On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Truly Donovan wrote:
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
...
> > and I type the command "FILE." and it says "unknown command 'FILE.'",
> > surely there is something wrong?
>
> Ah, the same wheezy old chestnut. Can't you guys come up with a more
> original complaint, inasmuch as we all know that any writer worth
> keeping around wouldn't have written it that way in the first place?
My example comes straight out of an IBM manual. Sorry if it's
too hackneyed for you. For literary merit, I recommend the relevant
section in MEU2. (Look for the heading "Stops", subsection "Inverted
Commas".)
John Nurick
kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) wrote:
>Why bother
>reforming spelling at all if the reform adds as much confusion
>as it subtracts?
Afrikaans spelling is or resembles "cut" Dutch. Does anyone know how
much confusion that caused/causes?
--
John Nurick
j.nu...@dial.pipex.com
jef...@imap2.asu.edu
SOMEONE WROTE :
> >Americans have different rules...
Do you just realize that Americans speak french, portuguese,
spanish, Hopi, Navajo, Tupi-Guarani?
If North American-English is different from British-English,
imagine Portuguese or Spanish.....
Theater, teatro, escena, palco....
Does the British-English are the same? Americans are different....
=========================================================================
Robson Correa de Camargo
e-mail: jef...@imap2.asu.edu
Keith C. Ivey
melis...@aol.com (Meliss6789) wrote:
>Splng rfrmrs hav always wanted to cut *silent* letters, but
>Ct Splng, for reasons I'll never understand, cuts even letters
>*that are pronounced.* The simplistic solution: Children have
>trouble spelling schwas because of all the different ways it
>can be represented. The solution? Ban *any* depiction of the
>schwa.
According to "Cut Spelling: Short Leaflet", at
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~nik/spelling/cut_spelling.html,
the only schwas omitted seem to be the ones "with" (which seems
to mean "before") "l", "m", "n", and "r" and in the inflectional
endings "ed", "es", "able"/"ible", and "ing" (where the "i"
isn't even a schwa).
Your point remains, of course. A reader unfamiliar with
"jenrl", for example, can't tell whether it's /dZE n@rl/,
/dZEn r@l/, /dZE n@ r@l/, or even /dZE @n @r @l/. "Lightning"
and "lightening" are both spelled "lytnng". Why bother
reforming spelling at all if the reform adds as much confusion
as it subtracts?
[posted and mailed]
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eei-alex.com/eye/>
Robert Dormer
David Lewis (da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Why? I wasn't quoting, just making a statement! All right, if you
: really do wish to be pedantic I will, in future, place quotation marks
: around the required text. Next question, where will you put the full
: stop, inside or outside the quotation marks? This will keep this thread
: alive. :-)
It will indeed. Shouldn't there be a colon
rather than a comma after `Next question'?
Your turn!
Robert.
David Lewis
In article <4shgl8$b...@netty.york.ac.uk>, Robert Dormer
<r...@minster.york.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>It will indeed. Shouldn't there be a colon
>rather than a comma after `Next question'?
>
>Your turn!
>
might very well have changed the comma to a colon. But I didn't so I
stand corrected.
--
David Lewis
Tim
In article <4shgl8$b...@netty.york.ac.uk>, r...@minster.york.ac.uk (Robert
Dormer) wrote:
|
|David Lewis (da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk) wrote:
|: Why? I wasn't quoting, just making a statement! All right, if you
|: really do wish to be pedantic I will, in future, place quotation marks
|: around the required text. Next question, where will you put the full
|: stop, inside or outside the quotation marks? This will keep this thread
|: alive. :-)
|
|rather than a comma after `Next question'?
Or a semi-colon, hyphen, endash, or emdash. So little time and so much
choice. ;-)
t.
--
/\ Beech Cottage | Using Voyager 1.07 & na078 on Acorn A310 |
/ \ Stoke Mandeville ==========================================
( ) HP22 5UP UK +44(0)1296 615825
|| See our Web Site: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/timil
Beech Consulting : Tight Fit Theatre : The Young Theatre : Prompt
.. Then the willows must scuttle carefully.
Tim
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960717...@general1.asu.edu>,
jef...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
|
|
|SOMEONE WROTE :
|
|> >Americans have different rules...
|
| Do you just realize that Americans speak french, portuguese,
| spanish, Hopi, Navajo, Tupi-Guarani?
What, all of them. Wow. Clever ain't they? ;-)
| If North American-English is different from British-English
As opposed to British-Welsh or British-Gaelic?
The country is England, the language is English. Without qualification. Or
you could say Commonwealth-English or The Queen's English? But
British-English? Ugh.
| imagine Portuguese or Spanish.....
| Theater, teatro, escena, palco....
Yeah, there's loadsa Portugese in Portugal, Spanish in Spain, and I daresay
a few French in France.
| Does the British-English are the same? Americans are different....
Huh? Wassat?
t.
--
/\ Beech Cottage | Using Voyager 1.07 & na078 on Acorn A310 |
/ \ Stoke Mandeville ==========================================
( ) HP22 5UP UK +44(0)1296 615825
|| See our Web Site: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/timil
Beech Consulting : Tight Fit Theatre : The Young Theatre : Prompt
... Reflection, surprise, terror .. for the future.
jef...@imap2.asu.edu
On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 Tim@.MISSING-HOST-NAME. wrote:
> Yeah, there's **** loadsa ***** Portugese in Portugal, Spanish in Spain,
and I daresay > a few French in France.
> ... Reflection, surprise, terror .. for the future.
Languages 101
1 - There are about 20.000.000 PEOPLE with has in spanish
his first language in EUA.
2 - North America does not have an official language...
3 - Brazilians (only 170.000.000) lived in South America,
they speak portuguese.
4 - Portuguese is a language from Africa too.
5 - Spanish is not only a language from Spain.
Argentina, Peru, and another twenty countries.
America in only for north-americans? Excuse me moy Canadians...
=========================================================================
Robson Correa de Camargo
TEMPE - ARIZONA
Meliss6789
kci...@cpcug.org (Keith C. Ivey) writes:
> [....]
> Your point remains, of course. A reader unfamiliar with
> "jenrl", for example, can't tell whether it's /dZE n@rl/,
> /dZEn r@l/, /dZE n@ r@l/, or even /dZE @n @r @l/. "Lightning"
> and "lightening" are both spelled "lytnng". Why bother
> reforming spelling at all if the reform adds as much confusion
> as it subtracts?
Precisely.
Melissa
------------------------------
Melissa Saunders
melis...@aol.com
------------------------------
Allan and/or Helen Campbell
In articl <melis...@aol.com> (Meliss6789) rote:
>Splng rfrmrs hav always wanted to cut *silent* letters, but
>Ct Splng, for reasons I'll never understand, cuts even letters
>*that are pronounced.* The simplistic solution: Children have
>trouble spelling schwas because of all the different ways it
>can be represented. The solution? Ban *any* depiction of the
>schwa.
Rathr than cutng letrs that ar pronounced, it may be that som
spelng reformrs hav concluded it dosnt always need
two letrs to sho one sound: eg, in "sacrament" th r makes
enuf nois in th midl of th word to sufice; in simlr fashion, th
n dos for en: so "sacrmnt". Od lookng to th uninitiated; like
many words in curent orthografy (and not just to th uninitiated!).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allan Campbell Ritn in cut spelng
Bexley, Christchurch, New Zealand
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve MacGregor
Jene tajpis lastatempe Allan and/or Helen Campbell:
> Rathr than cutng letrs that ar pronounced, it may be that som
> spelng reformrs hav concluded it dosnt always need
> two letrs to sho one sound: eg, in "sacrament" th r makes
> enuf nois in th midl of th word to sufice; in simlr fashion, th
> n dos for en: so "sacrmnt". Od lookng to th uninitiated; like
> many words in curent orthografy (and not just to th uninitiated!).
So how is one to tell how "sacrmnt" is pronounced? Is it
* sasser-mint
* sakker-mint
* sasra-mint
* sakra-mint
* sac-rum-nut
This adds chaos, not simplicity.
--
--------------------------------------------------
Help stamp out, eliminate, and abolish redundancy!
--------------------------------------------------
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <83775186...@bexley.southern.co.nz>,
camp...@bexley.southern.co.nz (Allan and/or Helen Campbell) wrote:
> In articl <melis...@aol.com> (Meliss6789) rote:
>
> >Splng rfrmrs hav always wanted to cut *silent* letters, but
> >Ct Splng, for reasons I'll never understand, cuts even letters
> >*that are pronounced.* The simplistic solution: Children have
> >trouble spelling schwas because of all the different ways it
> >can be represented. The solution? Ban *any* depiction of the
> >schwa.
>
> Rathr than cutng letrs that ar pronounced, it may be that som
> spelng reformrs hav concluded it dosnt always need
> two letrs to sho one sound: eg, in "sacrament" th r makes
> enuf nois in th midl of th word to sufice; in simlr fashion, th
> n dos for en: so "sacrmnt". Od lookng to th uninitiated; like
> many words in curent orthografy (and not just to th uninitiated!).
That is really abominably silly. I admit that two letters are not needed
to show one sound (whether I'm willing to get rid of them merely on that
basis is another story, however), but you are claiming that two sounds are
one sound! e.g. (and I don't see how you get away cutting the spelling of
that; it looks like you're trying to say "egg"), in "sacrament" you claim
that the /r@/ spelled <ra> is one noise, which is on the face of it
absurd. It is two noises, one of which is /r/, spelled <r>, and one of
which is /@/, spelled <a>. You cut the letter <a>, which is pronounced in
the word. Similarly <e>, which is pronounced /@/. If you eliminate all
spelling of schwas (and some other sounds, apparently), it becomes
impossible to tell by looking at a word where the schwas in it are, or
indeed if it possesses any. Consider <sacrmnt>. How can you tell if it's
"sacrament", "sackerment", "sacramnut", or any of numerous other schwa
placements. If confronted with something spelled <spelng>, I would
endeavor mightily to pronounce it with one syllable: /spElN/. I could pick
out many other exasmples from your paragraph above, but I will only pick
out one: <simlr>. My first guess would be "simler". Cut Spelling may ease
the transition from ear to paper, but it makes the transition from paper
to brain or mouth much more impenetrable. (<impentrbl> -> "impenterbel".)
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Peter Moylan
I'm losing track of who wrote what here; but somebody wrote:
>(5) Inconsistent. Firstly, the i has been eliminated in one place and
>kept in another; secondly, i is by no means a neutral vowel; and thirdly,
>-ing is a reflex with _absolutely no exception_, and is _phonetically
>consistent_. It therefore requires no alteration.
A point that some people might have missed is that the most
recent Cute Spelling proposals have been posted by
someone in New Zealand. In NZ English, the "i" in "-ing"
is indeed a neutral vowel.
A New Zealander would have no difficulty in seeing the
connection between "spelng" and the pronunciation "spil'ng".
(On the other hand, a non-native speaker would probably
read it as "speln'g". Presumably one has to be aware of
the pre-reform spellings of words to resolve ambiguities
like this.)
I've yet to see a spelling reform proposal that didn't
contain strong hints about the dialect spoken by the
proponents.
Here's a question you might like to ask of your friendly
local spelling reformer. How many distinct letters are
needed to represent the vowel sounds in
cat/cut/cot/cart/caught? Why?
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://www.eng.newcastle.edu.au/ee/Moylan.html
OS/2 freeware list at
http://www.eng.newcastle.edu.au/ee/Moylan/os2/os2info.html
Lee Lester
2 - North America does not have an official language...
Canada, part of N. America still I believe, has two -- French and
English.