Is this correct English - From the Queen Herself?
Logician
senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
political party"
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx
"Queen's English" - taught all over the world.
I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
"Their Political Party"
I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
Why is the Queen's own site correct?
naive user
> "The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
> senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
> political party"
>
>
> "Queen's English" - taught all over the world.
>
> I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
> "Their Political Party"
>
> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
>
> I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
> just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
>
> Why is the Queen's own site correct?
The logical thing to do is to examine your premises.
English is what native speakers speak. If they consistently say one
thing, then that's English by definition. Any a-priori notions of what
the language ought to be are irrelevant.
the Omrud
> "The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
> senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
> political party"
>
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx
>
> "Queen's English" - taught all over the world.
>
> I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
> "Their Political Party"
>
> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
It's a way of avoiding the clunky "his/her".
> I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
> just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
That's the way English works, even if you don't like it. Much of the
way I speak would have been considered wrong 200 years ago.
> Why is the Queen's own site correct?
I have a suspicion that she doesn't write it herself.
--
David
Logician
> On 06/05/2010 13:51, Logician wrote:
>
> > "The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
> > senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
> > political party"
>
>
> > "Queen's English" - taught all over the world.
>
> > I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
> > "Their Political Party"
>
> > I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
> > one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
>
> It's a way of avoiding the clunky "his/her".
Yes, so that makes it correct?
>
> > I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
> > just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
>
> That's the way English works, even if you don't like it. Much of the
> way I speak would have been considered wrong 200 years ago.
I am talking about what is correct according to rules of grammar.
>
> > Why is the Queen's own site correct?
>
> I have a suspicion that she doesn't write it herself.
If you were the Head of State of the UK and Britain's richest person,
I doubt you would write much. The Queen does not do anything herself
except digest her food.
>
> --
> David
Logician
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually I am trying to find it if the language is actually correct or
just as you colloquial English which is not really correct.
The words simply make no sense, so are you saying the word "their"
refers to a single person?
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>On 06/05/2010 13:51, Logician wrote:
>> "The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
>> senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
>> political party"
>>
>> http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx
>>
>> "Queen's English" - taught all over the world.
>>
>> I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
>> "Their Political Party"
>>
>> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
>> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
>
>It's a way of avoiding the clunky "his/her".
>
>> I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
>> just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
>
>That's the way English works, even if you don't like it. Much of the
>way I speak would have been considered wrong 200 years ago.
>
Yes.
The OED says of "they":
2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by
every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= ‘he or
she’).
See Jespersen Progress in Lang. §24.
1526...
1535 FISHER Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh
any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues.
....
1759 CHESTERFIELD Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of
a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it.
....
1858 BAGEHOT Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a moment
that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary
propriety.
....
[see THEMSELVES 5].
themselves, pron. pl.
5. In concord with a singular pronoun or n. denoting a person, in
cases where ... or refers to either sex: = himself or herself. Cf.
THEY 2, THEM 2.
1464 Rolls of Parlt. V. 513/2 Inheritements, of which any of the
seid persones..was seised by theym self, or joyntly with other.
c1489 CAXTON Sonnes of Aymon i. 39 Eche of theym sholde..make
theymselfe redy.
1533 MORE Apol. 55b, Neyther Tyndale there nor thys precher..hath by
theyr maner of expounynge..wonne them self mych wurshyp.
1600 SHAKES. Lucr. 125 Euery one to rest themselues [ed. 1594
himselfe] betake.
....
>> Why is the Queen's own site correct?
>
>I have a suspicion that she doesn't write it herself.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
the Omrud
> On 6 May, 14:12, the Omrud<usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/05/2010 13:51, Logician wrote:
>>
>>> "The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
>>> senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
>>> political party"
>>
>>> http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMin...
>>
>>> "Queen's English" - taught all over the world.
>>
>>> I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
>>> "Their Political Party"
>>
>>> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
>>> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
>>
>> It's a way of avoiding the clunky "his/her".
>
> Yes, so that makes it correct?
It makes it the way we use English in the UK.
>>> I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
>>> just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
>>
>> That's the way English works, even if you don't like it. Much of the
>> way I speak would have been considered wrong 200 years ago.
>
> I am talking about what is correct according to rules of grammar.
If I may paraphrase Yoda (and I think I may), there is no "correct".
There is only speak and not speak.
>>
>>> Why is the Queen's own site correct?
>>
>> I have a suspicion that she doesn't write it herself.
> If you were the Head of State of the UK and Britain's richest person,
Why do people think this? She comes somewhere below 200 on the Sunday
Times UK Rich List. I mean, I know she's not short of a few bob, but
the Duke of Westminster (coming in at number 3) has about 25 times the
wealth of HMQ.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_search/
http://tinyurl.com/2fo8s9
> I doubt you would write much. The Queen does not do anything herself
> except digest her food.
I think she signs a lot of Bills, transubstantiating them into Acts by
Kingly magic. And we know she can climb stairs, even if the colonials
think it's beyond her powers.
--
David
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
She is also kept busy:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx
The Queen has many different duties to perform every day.
Some are public duties, such as ceremonies, receptions and visits
within the United Kingdom or abroad.
Other duties are carried out away from the cameras, but they are no
less important. These include reading letters from the public,
official papers and briefing notes; audiences with political
ministers or ambassadors; and meetings with her Private Secretaries
to discuss daily business and her future diary plans.
Even when she is away from London, in residence at Balmoral or
year and remains fully briefed on matters affecting her realms.
In front of the camera or away from it, The Queen's duties go on,
and no two days in her life are ever the same.
TF
> On 06/05/2010 15:10, Logician wrote:
> > If you were the Head of State of the UK and Britain's richest person,
>
> Why do people think this? She comes somewhere below 200 on the Sunday
> Times UK Rich List. I mean, I know she's not short of a few bob, but
> the Duke of Westminster (coming in at number 3) has about 25 times the
> wealth of HMQ.
>
> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_search/
> http://tinyurl.com/2fo8s9
Always depends upon how and what you measure, I suppose. Quoting from
that web page:
"Our calculations exclude the vast Crown Estate and royal art
collection (together worth more than ￜ16 billion)"
Also, with her being Defender of the Faith and all, shouldn't one take
into account CoE estates and whatnots as well?
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>On Thu May 6 2010 at 14:46:04 UTC, the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/05/2010 15:10, Logician wrote:
>> > If you were the Head of State of the UK and Britain's richest person,
>>
>> Why do people think this? She comes somewhere below 200 on the Sunday
>> Times UK Rich List. I mean, I know she's not short of a few bob, but
>> the Duke of Westminster (coming in at number 3) has about 25 times the
>> wealth of HMQ.
>>
>> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_search/
>> http://tinyurl.com/2fo8s9
>
>Always depends upon how and what you measure, I suppose. Quoting from
>that web page:
>
> "Our calculations exclude the vast Crown Estate and royal art
> collection (together worth more than �16 billion)"
>
>Also, with her being Defender of the Faith and all, shouldn't one take
>into account CoE estates and whatnots as well?
<smile>
The Crown Estate, the royal art collection and the CoE estates are not
her private property. She has no power to sell any of it.
Including those as part of her personal fortune would be like saying the
the Prime Minister (Gordon Brown at this instant) is immensely rich
because he is head of the government and look at all the buildings owned
by the government.
Logician
wrote:
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 14:12:16 +0100, the Omrud
>
>
>
>
>
> <usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
> >On 06/05/2010 13:51, Logician wrote:
> >> "The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
> >> senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
> >> political party"
>
>
> >> "Queen's English" - taught all over the world.
>
> >> I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
> >> "Their Political Party"
>
> >> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
> >> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
>
> >It's a way of avoiding the clunky "his/her".
>
> >> I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
> >> just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
>
> >That's the way English works, even if you don't like it. Much of the
> >way I speak would have been considered wrong 200 years ago.
>
> Yes.
>
> The OED says of "they":
I did not mention "they."
> (in alt.usage.english)- Hide quoted text -
Logician
wrote:
> On 6 May 2010 15:02:38 GMT, TF <rfnxh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Thu May 6 2010 at 14:46:04 UTC, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 06/05/2010 15:10, Logician wrote:
> >> > If you were the Head of State of the UK and Britain's richest person,
>
> >> Why do people think this? She comes somewhere below 200 on the Sunday
> >> Times UK Rich List. I mean, I know she's not short of a few bob, but
> >> the Duke of Westminster (coming in at number 3) has about 25 times the
> >> wealth of HMQ.
>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2fo8s9
>
> >Always depends upon how and what you measure, I suppose. Quoting from
> >that web page:
>
> > "Our calculations exclude the vast Crown Estate and royal art
> > collection (together worth more than £16 billion)"
>
> >Also, with her being Defender of the Faith and all, shouldn't one take
> >into account CoE estates and whatnots as well?
>
> <smile>
>
> The Crown Estate, the royal art collection and the CoE estates are not
> her private property. She has no power to sell any of it.
>
> Including those as part of her personal fortune would be like saying the
> the Prime Minister (Gordon Brown at this instant) is immensely rich
> because he is head of the government and look at all the buildings owned
> by the government.
That is a difficult legal point.
>
> --
> Peter Duncanson, UK
Logician
>
> > I doubt you would write much. The Queen does not do anything herself
> > except digest her food.
>
> I think she signs a lot of Bills, transubstantiating them into Acts by
> Kingly magic. And we know she can climb stairs, even if the colonials
> think it's beyond her powers.
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
I do not really believe the Sunday Times.
Logician
wrote:
> >http://tinyurl.com/2fo8s9
>
> >> I doubt you would write much. The Queen does not do anything herself
> >> except digest her food.
>
> >I think she signs a lot of Bills, transubstantiating them into Acts by
> >Kingly magic. And we know she can climb stairs, even if the colonials
> >think it's beyond her powers.
>
> She is also kept busy:http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx
>
> The Queen has many different duties to perform every day.
>
> Some are public duties, such as ceremonies, receptions and visits
> within the United Kingdom or abroad.
>
> Other duties are carried out away from the cameras, but they are no
> less important. These include reading letters from the public,
> official papers and briefing notes; audiences with political
> ministers or ambassadors; and meetings with her Private Secretaries
> to discuss daily business and her future diary plans.
>
> Even when she is away from London, in residence at Balmoral or
> year and remains fully briefed on matters affecting her realms.
>
> In front of the camera or away from it, The Queen's duties go on,
> and no two days in her life are ever the same.
>
> --
> Peter Duncanson, UK
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe she's busy.
JimboCat
on you.
<http://basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2010/5/5/how-to-
bother-someone-back.html>
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"If we had a grammar checker that really worked, we could probably
eliminate all other kinds of spam filters." [Peter Moylan]
Jeffrey Turner
> On 6 May, 15:31, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"<m...@peterduncanson.net>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 May 2010 14:12:16 +0100, the Omrud
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/05/2010 13:51, Logician wrote:
>>>> "The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
>>>> senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
>>>> political party"
>>
>>>> http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMin...
>>
>>>> "Queen's English" - taught all over the world.
>>
>>>> I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
>>>> "Their Political Party"
>>
>>>> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
>>>> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
>>
>>> It's a way of avoiding the clunky "his/her".
>>
>>>> I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
>>>> just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
>>
>>> That's the way English works, even if you don't like it. Much of the
>>> way I speak would have been considered wrong 200 years ago.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> The OED says of "they":
>
> I did not mention "they."
"Their" is the possessive of "they," it was even part of one of the
examples given in the OED.
1533 MORE Apol. 55b, Neyther Tyndale there nor thys precher..hath by
theyr maner of expounynge..wonne them self mych wurshyp.
"They" can be singular. "Their" as well.
--Jeff
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On 6 May, 15:31, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 May 2010 14:12:16 +0100, the Omrud
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 06/05/2010 13:51, Logician wrote:
>> >> "The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
>> >> senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
>> >> political party"
>>
>> >>http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMin...
>>
>> >> "Queen's English" �- taught all over the world.
>>
>> >> I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
>> >> "Their Political Party"
>>
>> >> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
>> >> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
>>
>> >It's a way of avoiding the clunky "his/her".
>>
>> >> I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
>> >> just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
>>
>> >That's the way English works, even if you don't like it. �Much of the
>> >way I speak would have been considered wrong 200 years ago.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> The OED says of "they":
>
>I did not mention "they."
True, but "they", "them", "their", "themselves", etc. are close
relatives which are used in a singular sense whether you like (Oops
that's plural; try "thou likest" instead) it or not.
Skitt
"Logician" wrote:
> naive user wrote:
>> Logician wrote:
>>> "The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
>>> senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
>>> political party"
>>>
>>> http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMin...
>>>
>>> "Queen's English" - taught all over the world.
>>>
>>> I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
>>> "Their Political Party"
>>>
>>> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
>>> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
>>>
>>> I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
>>> just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
>>>
>>> Why is the Queen's own site correct?
>>
>> The logical thing to do is to examine your premises.
>>
>> English is what native speakers speak. If they consistently say one
>> thing, then that's English by definition. Any a-priori notions of what
>> the language ought to be are irrelevant.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Actually I am trying to find it if the language is actually correct or
> just as you colloquial English which is not really correct.
>
> The words simply make no sense, so are you saying the word "their"
> refers to a single person?
M-W Online has:
usage
They, their, them, themselves: English lacks a common-gender third person
singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as
everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by
using the plural pronouns <and every one to rest themselves betake -
Shakespeare> <I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly - Jane
Austen> <it is too hideous for anyone in their senses to buy - W. H.
Auden>. The plural pronouns have also been put to use as pronouns of
indefinite number to refer to singular nouns that stand for many persons
<'tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them
partial, should o'erhear the speech - Shakespeare> <a person can't help
their birth - W. M. Thackeray> <no man goes to battle to be killed. - But
they do get killed - G. B. Shaw>. The use of they, their, them, and
themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well
established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts.
This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they
sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and
their inflected forms) where you think they sound best.
--
Skitt
Information is gushing toward your brain
like a fire hose aimed at a teacup.
-- Dogbert
Cece
>
> - Show quoted text -
I use common gender. The idiot feminists got their knickers all
twisted over the maleness of the language (chairman, fireman, postman,
etc.) and included common gender.
It is almost always possible to phrase sentences in such a way that a
singular pronoun is not necessary, either by using plural nouns or by
using constructions that do not need pronouns at all. If pronouns of
indefinite gender are needed, let's invent some! I offer "heesh," for
nominative, objective, and possessive, taken from _Rebel Worlds_, an
SF novel by Poul Anderson, used for persons of an alien race -- each
person is tripartite; each of the three suymbionts belongs to a
species that has two genders and, at a glance, the humans interacting
with them cannot tell how many of which gender are present in an
individual.
Pierre Jelenc
>
> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
Doest thou insist on that distinction in all cases? Or are you just
obstreperous?
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.gigometer.com
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org
Robin Bignall
You've forgotten walkies with the royal corgis. A high-priority task.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
the Omrud
Doesn't she have a corgi wallah for that?
--
David
HVS
Indeed she does. The corgis and the lady who looks after them occupy a
[rather basic] staff cottage at Windsor.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Peter Moylan
> Logician <sa...@logicians.com> writes:
>> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
>> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
>
> Doest thou insist on that distinction in all cases? Or are you just
> obstreperous?
ObQuibble: dost.
There's no point in complaining, though. Using the plural pronoun "you"
with a singular referent has become so common that it's now impossible
to hold the tide back.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Robert Bannister
> On Thu May 6 2010 at 14:46:04 UTC, the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>> On 06/05/2010 15:10, Logician wrote:
>>> If you were the Head of State of the UK and Britain's richest person,
>> Why do people think this? She comes somewhere below 200 on the Sunday
>> Times UK Rich List. I mean, I know she's not short of a few bob, but
>> the Duke of Westminster (coming in at number 3) has about 25 times the
>> wealth of HMQ.
>>
>> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/specials/rich_list/rich_list_search/
>> http://tinyurl.com/2fo8s9
>
> Always depends upon how and what you measure, I suppose. Quoting from
> that web page:
>
> "Our calculations exclude the vast Crown Estate and royal art
>
> Also, with her being Defender of the Faith and all, shouldn't one take
> into account CoE estates and whatnots as well?
That stuff belongs to the British people and possibly to the inhabitants
of all the other countries of which she is queen. She's not allowed to
sell it, so it's pointless saying it's hers.
--
Rob Bannister
Pierre Jelenc
> Pierre Jelenc wrote:
> > Logician <sa...@logicians.com> writes:
> >> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
> >> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
> >
> > Doest thou insist on that distinction in all cases? Or are you just
> > obstreperous?
>
> ObQuibble: dost.
Both are OK according to Random House.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> On 06/05/2010 13:51, Logician wrote:
>> "The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
>> senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
>> political party"
>>
>> http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx
>>
>> "Queen's English" - taught all over the world.
>>
>> I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
>> "Their Political Party"
>>
>> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
>> one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
>
> It's a way of avoiding the clunky "his/her".
Didn't we discuss the same question, raised by the same troll, just a
few weeks ago? Only Eric Walker agreed with it then, as far as I can
remember, so what makes it think anything will be different now? (I use
"it" advisedly, as its name doesn't make it clear whether it's male or
female (though this degree of foolishness seems more male than female),
and it presumably wouldn't be happy if I referred to it as "they".)
>
>> I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
>> just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
>
> That's the way English works, even if you don't like it. Much of the
> way I speak would have been considered wrong 200 years ago.
>
>> Why is the Queen's own site correct?
>
> I have a suspicion that she doesn't write it herself.
--
athel
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> writes:
>> Pierre Jelenc wrote:
>> > Logician <sa...@logicians.com> writes:
>> >> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more
>> >> than one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers
>> >> (pl).
>> >
>> > Doest thou insist on that distinction in all cases? Or are you
>> > just obstreperous?
>>
>> ObQuibble: dost.
>
> Both are OK according to Random House.
Looking at Google Books, I see 86,700 hits for "dost thou" to 2,030
for "doest thou". Perhaps more significantly, of those, 1,278 are
hits for "what doest thou", where I would pronounce it /duEst/ rather
than /dOst/. There are hits for "doest" as a modal, but they appear
to be in a small minority.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"The Dynamics of Interbeing and
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Monological Imperatives in 'Dick
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and Jane' : A Study in Psychic
|Transrelational Modes."
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Don Phillipson
news:025eaafa-793c-4ac3...@r11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > "The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
> > senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
> > political party"
>
> >http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMin...
>
> > I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
> > "Their Political Party"
> Actually I am trying to find it if the language is actually correct or
> just as you colloquial English which is not really correct.
>
> The words simply make no sense, so are you saying the word "their"
> refers to a single person?
Since this comes from the royal web site, what it mainly demonstrates
is that Palace staff nowadays are less skilled and adept in their own
language than formerly. (To declare bias, I recently enjoyed the memoirs
of Alan Lascelles, King George VI's private secretary.) Core points are
1. Colloquial English often jumps from singular to plural like
this. E.g. people say "If it rains, everyone must put up their umbrellas."
2. The well-educated can usually rephrase to avoid this jump, e.g.:
"The Queen has a special relationship with the Prime Minister, the
senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of party."
(or " . . . the senior figure in the British Government, whatever his
political party." Repeating the word political twice in the same
sentence is normally bad style.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Robert Bannister
> rc...@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) writes:
>
>> Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> writes:
>>> Pierre Jelenc wrote:
>>>> Logician <sa...@logicians.com> writes:
>>>>> I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more
>>>>> than one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers
>>>>> (pl).
>>>> Doest thou insist on that distinction in all cases? Or are you
>>>> just obstreperous?
>>> ObQuibble: dost.
>> Both are OK according to Random House.
>
> Looking at Google Books, I see 86,700 hits for "dost thou" to 2,030
> for "doest thou". Perhaps more significantly, of those, 1,278 are
> hits for "what doest thou", where I would pronounce it /duEst/ rather
> than /dOst/. There are hits for "doest" as a modal, but they appear
> to be in a small minority.
>
Re. your second vowel: my "dost" rhymes exactly with "dust".
--
Rob Bannister
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> Looking at Google Books, I see 86,700 hits for "dost thou" to 2,030
>> for "doest thou". Perhaps more significantly, of those, 1,278 are
>> hits for "what doest thou", where I would pronounce it /duEst/ rather
>> than /dOst/. There are hits for "doest" as a modal, but they appear
>> to be in a small minority.
>>
>
> Re. your second vowel: my "dost" rhymes exactly with "dust".
Mine rhymes with "cost" and "lost".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Yesterday I washed a single sock.
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |When I opened the door, the machine
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |was empty.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 08 May 2010 08:09:14 +0800:
Mine too.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
musika
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> typed:
It's always good to have a couple of dusters around.
--
Ray
UK
Jeffrey Turner
> In message <gubFn.3361$%c6....@newsfe27.ams2> musika
In case one went golfing.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>In message <gubFn.3361$%c6....@newsfe27.ams2>
> musika <mUs...@SPAMNOTexcite.com> wrote:
>You can only wear one at a time, so why would one need two?
In BrE one wears a "dustcoat" and cleans dust off things with "dusters":
http://www.allianceonline.co.uk/product_images/HCD01000.jpg
Wood Avens
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>In BrE one wears a "dustcoat" and cleans dust off things with "dusters":
>http://www.allianceonline.co.uk/product_images/HCD01000.jpg
One does? Does anyone, actually, any longer?
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:10:25 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>
>>In BrE one wears a "dustcoat" and cleans dust off things with "dusters":
>>http://www.allianceonline.co.uk/product_images/HCD01000.jpg
>
>One does? Does anyone, actually, any longer?
I occasionally dust things. I much more frequently look at something and
think "I must dust that sometime".
Perhaps I should announce a date for dusting and sell tickets to those
who wish to watch a performance of this ancient ritual.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>In message <9ldbu513klrmssvuk...@4ax.com>
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>A duster is a woman's coat used for driving in Agatha Chrstie novels.
Ah yes. The OED says that sense is "Chiefly U.S.".
Wood Avens
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:41:24 +0100, Wood Avens
><wood...@askjennison.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:10:25 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In BrE one wears a "dustcoat" and cleans dust off things with "dusters":
>>>http://www.allianceonline.co.uk/product_images/HCD01000.jpg
>>
>>One does? Does anyone, actually, any longer?
>
>I occasionally dust things. I much more frequently look at something and
>think "I must dust that sometime".
>
>Perhaps I should announce a date for dusting and sell tickets to those
>who wish to watch a performance of this ancient ritual.
Oh, I occasionally dust things. It'd the possession and ceremonial
donning of the dustcoat that's missing from my own enactment of said
hallowed ritual.
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 08 May 2010 20:41:24 +0100:
> On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:10:25 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>
> >In BrE one wears a "dustcoat" and cleans dust off things with "dusters":
> >http://www.allianceonline.co.uk/product_images/HCD01000.jpg
>
> One does? Does anyone, actually, any longer?
I don't do much dusting myself but my cleaning lady does.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> Looking at Google Books, I see 86,700 hits for "dost thou" to 2,030
>>> for "doest thou". Perhaps more significantly, of those, 1,278 are
>>> hits for "what doest thou", where I would pronounce it /duEst/ rather
>>> than /dOst/. There are hits for "doest" as a modal, but they appear
>>> to be in a small minority.
>>>
>> Re. your second vowel: my "dost" rhymes exactly with "dust".
>
> Mine rhymes with "cost" and "lost".
>
I wonder how Shakespeare would have said it. The third possibility
rhymes with "roost".
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
I live in hopes that my cleaning lady will see the dust. She doesn't
appear to see cobwebs either.
Of course, she's not, strictly speaking, /my/ cleaning lady. My suburb
has apparently been struck off the register of areas where cleaning
ladies go, so I no longer have a private arrangement with a lady to come
and "do" for me. However, because of my mother's health, we do get
cleaning done by the "homecare" people - unfortunately, they don't do
the two rooms used exclusively by me. The results are somewhat dusty.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
How about the one that rhymes with "host"?...r
--
"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly."
- Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:46:17 +0800:
My dear Angela has been looking after me for nearly 18 years. She first
came when my wife became ill and after my wife died continued to do so.
She is part of the family now and I am part of hers.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
John Holmes
Did Agatha Christie use the word herself, or is it something that
appeared in translations?
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
James Hogg
Shakespeare never used "dost" in a rhyme, but we can look at rhymes
using other forms of the verb. He usually rhymes "done" with word likes
"sun", but once with "afternoon", which suggests that the vowel of "do"
could also be heard. And the only time he rhymes "doth" is with "tooth".
I would deduce that "doest" could be either "doo-(e)st" or "dust".
--
James
Athel Cornish-Bowden
A spot of pedantry here (which, like many examples of pedantry, may be
mistaken), but don't you mean that your "dost" is pronounced exactly
like your "dust" (as mine would be, and was, in the far-off days when I
went to church)? Good poets, I think, never use a word to rhyme with
itself (if they did it would be easy to find rhymes for "silver" and
"orange"), and I don't think they use different words with exactly the
same pronunciation to rhyme with one another, or even words with the
same final stressed syllable. Is this true? If so, can we say that a
word rhymes with itself or with a word that sounds exactly the same?
--
athel
Amethyst Deceiver
<sa...@logicians.com> wrote:
>"The Queen has a special relationship with THE Prime Minister, the
>senior political figure in the British Government, regardless of THEIR
>political party"
>
>http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx
>
>"Queen's English" - taught all over the world.
Is it? I'm pretty sure they teach a different version in America.
>I cannot understand why it is correct to say The Prime Minister and
>"Their Political Party"
>
>I see this type of language frequently, but THEIR refers to more than
>one, so the sentence would need to say Prime Ministers (pl).
Bzzt. Wrong. Thank you for playing.
>I do not want to see an answer that says "it is accepted" That to me
>just says we got it wrong, so we will change the rules.
Go and read about "third person singular pronouns".
>Why is the Queen's own site correct?
Why wouldn't it be?
Robert Bannister
Clearly the reason he avoided using it in rhyme was because he didn't
know how to pronounce it.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
I tend to agree with part of what you say. I can't even think of a poem
where homophones are used as rhymes, although I am sure they exist. As
you say: good poets don't. However, I am certain that "crews" rhymes
with "cruise" and "rues" and "ruse".
--
Rob Bannister
James Hogg
A newly discovered scribble, initialled WS:
Indeed I can pronounce whate'er I must.
I know the language better than thou doest.
The words De Vere doth write for me, in sooth,
Are writ by one who knoweth what he doth.
And he may choose whichever rhyme sounds truest
As thou, when writing poems, surely doest.
--
James
Wood Avens
wrote:
>
>A newly discovered scribble, initialled WS:
>
>Indeed I can pronounce whate'er I must.
>I know the language better than thou doest.
>The words De Vere doth write for me, in sooth,
>Are writ by one who knoweth what he doth.
>And he may choose whichever rhyme sounds truest
>As thou, when writing poems, surely doest.
WS > JH ... no, it's not quite rot13. Thought I'd stumbled on
something for a moment there ...
Peter Moylan
> On Mon, 10 May 2010 08:27:38 +0200, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> A newly discovered scribble, initialled WS:
>>
>> Indeed I can pronounce whate'er I must.
>> I know the language better than thou doest.
>> The words De Vere doth write for me, in sooth,
>> Are writ by one who knoweth what he doth.
>> And he may choose whichever rhyme sounds truest
>> As thou, when writing poems, surely doest.
>
> WS > JH ... no, it's not quite rot13. Thought I'd stumbled on
> something for a moment there ...
>
The trick is to apply the rot13 transformation twice.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Robert Bannister
[applause]
--
Rob Bannister
Roland Hutchinson
Those would be "rimes parfaits" -- considered to be very elegant in
Chaucer's day (there's one about a dozen and a half lines into the
Canturbury Tales prologue, f'rex); rather severely less highly prized
subsequently, at least in English. (My friend Google tells me that
Tennyson managed to come up with the rather pedestrian "At Florence too
what golden hours, | I those long galleries, were ours.")
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Sara Lorimer
> A duster is a woman's coat used for driving in Agatha Chrstie novels.
It protects one from papercuts.
--
SML
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Those would be "rimes parfaits" -- considered to be very elegant in
> Chaucer's day (there's one about a dozen and a half lines into the
> Canturbury Tales prologue, f'rex); rather severely less highly
> prized subsequently, at least in English. (My friend Google tells me
> that Tennyson managed to come up with the rather pedestrian "At
> Florence too what golden hours, | I those long galleries, were
> ours.")
That last might be considered rhyming /nOUrz/ with /rOUrz/
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem
|to see the obvious.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |
(650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper