Greengrocer's apostrophe --
andrew
Games & Demo's
I think the greengrocers apostrophe is used for words whose plurals are
unfamiliar, or when there might be some confusion like "demos" for "demoes."
Paul Vivash
"andrew" <and...@wicked.as> wrote in message
news:DhhW9.302$OF3.29...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
I think the greengrocers' (or greengrocer's if there's only one) apostrophe
probably refers to its erroneous use in non-possessive plurals such as
'potato's, tomato's etc
Paul
Gary Vellenzer
and...@wicked.as says...
Gary
Raymond S. Wise
When you say, "when there might be some confusion like 'demos' for 'demoes'"
you are indicating that you believe that "demoes" is how the plural is
spelled. The plural for "demo," however, is "demos."
Your hypothesis about when the greengrocer's apostrophe is used is testable,
but it would require someone to look at a large number of uses in the wild,
to compare the various words which receive that treatment.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Peter Moylan
There's a sign on a shop near me saying
Trophy's and gifts ect
(I'm not joking about the ect, but that's a different topic.) This
would appear to support your thesis. Nobody is confused about the plural
of "gift", but what do you do about forming the plural of a word
ending with a vowel? You and I know the answer, but apparently
the sign-writer didn't.
My guess is that the greengrocers' apo'strophe is used mostly for
words ending in a vowel. Nouns ending in vowels are in a minority
in this language, making it easier to come up with mistakes
like "potatoe".
Oh, by the way, I have some bad news to report. The "auto electrian"
a few blocks from here has finally corrected his sign.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au
Linz
> My guess is that the greengrocers' apo'strophe is used mostly for
> words ending in a vowel. Nouns ending in vowels are in a minority
> in this language, making it easier to come up with mistakes
> like "potatoe".
Would that this were so. On my way home every evening I pass a garage
advertising Auto's, Peugeot's, Volkswagen's and a variety of other
secondhand Car's.
dcw
Peter Moylan <pe...@totally-official.com> wrote:
>My guess is that the greengrocers' apo'strophe is used mostly for
>words ending in a vowel. Nouns ending in vowels are in a minority
>in this language, making it easier to come up with mistakes
>like "potatoe".
That would explain "This weeks speciality tea's". And there's a shop
near here that sells "battery's", "batterie's", and (remarkably)
"batteries", depending on which sign you read.
David
Gerry
"Linz" wrote
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> > My guess is that the greengrocers' apo'strophe is used mostly for
> > words ending in a vowel. Nouns ending in vowels are in a minority
> > in this language, making it easier to come up with mistakes
> > like "potatoe".
>
> Would that this were so.
Amen.
Many seem to genuinely believe that the way to form the plural is to add
apostrophe-s. A few seem to believe that an apostrophe is required before
every s.
Someone told me of seeing a greengrocer's sign:
Potato's
Tomato's
Asparagu's
Carrot's
Perhaps a greengrocer was having us on?
Gerry
Skitt
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> My guess is that the greengrocers' apo'strophe is used mostly for
>> words ending in a vowel. Nouns ending in vowels are in a minority
>> in this language, making it easier to come up with mistakes
>> like "potatoe".
>
> That would explain "This weeks speciality tea's". And there's a shop
> near here that sells "battery's", "batterie's", and (remarkably)
> "batteries", depending on which sign you read.
They like to cover their bases, what with all that acid around.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Charles Riggs
I'd like to think so, but I fear not.
--
Charles Riggs
chriggs |at| eircom |dot| com
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Mitsubishi's are nice. I'll sell you mine for a low low, one-day-only,
chance-in-a-lifetime, buy-it-before-it's-gone price of 5000 euros.
(Gotta pay the credit card company for that telescope and new laptop,
`ya know.)
john hoskins
<no...@nospam.com> writes
>
>"Linz" wrote
>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>> > My guess is that the greengrocers' apo'strophe is used mostly for
>> > words ending in a vowel. Nouns ending in vowels are in a minority
>> > in this language, making it easier to come up with mistakes
>> > like "potatoe".
>>
>> Would that this were so.
>
>Amen.
>
>Many seem to genuinely believe that the way to form the plural is to add
>apostrophe-s. A few seem to believe that an apostrophe is required before
>every s.
for Word program(mes) set to UK English. He is perverting a generation
of those weak of spelling.
--
john hoskins
mb
...
> > Potato's
> > Tomato's
> > Asparagu's
> > Carrot's
> >
> >Perhaps a greengrocer was having us on?
>
> I'd like to think so, but I fear not.
This one smacks of a conscious marketing trick.
Gerry
> >apostrophe-s. A few seem to believe that an apostrophe is required
before
> >every s.
> Bill Gates is an avid believer in the form - at least for spell-checkers
> for Word program(mes) set to UK English. He is perverting a generation
> of those weak of spelling.
(Though I'm no fan of his--) a spellchecker looks at each word in
isolation, with no form of syntax or context checking. Thus it must pass
I love carrot's
because it would pass
The carrot's advantage is its abundance of vitamins.
Gerry
Mary Shafer
> (Though I'm no fan of his--) a spellchecker looks at each word in
> isolation, with no form of syntax or context checking. Thus it must pass
> I love carrot's
> because it would pass
> The carrot's advantage is its abundance of vitamins.
What about the rule against an inanimate object possessing something?
There's no way "carrot's" can be correct if this is a real rule.
Mary
John Dean
I found the carrot's taste appetising. The carrot's colour was lighter than
I expected.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Robert Lieblich
There's no such rule.[1] Bob Cunningham has contributed an
excellent article to the AUE FAQ material on this very point,
available at
<http://www.alt-usage-english.org/genitive_and_possessive.html>.
Beware "rules" that aren't.
[1] Superstitions aren't rules. At least not in my book.
--
Bob Lieblich
Beware also "rules" that are
Mary Shafer
Well, it's a NASA rule and I wrote thirty-plus NASA reports, so for me
it wasn't a superstition. It may not be a universal rule, but it is a
rule. It's probably enshrined in the GPO style manual.
Since I just retired after thirty years as a research engineer at NASA,
I find that the NASA rules are pretty well ingrained in me. It's not as
if "no inanimate possessives" is engraved on my heart, like Calais, but
close.
I just didn't know if this rule was limited to NASA or the US gov't, or
not limited. I've seen inanimate possessives in print, but with today's
proofreading that doesn't exactly provide a real imprimatur.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer mil...@qnet.com
Retired Aerospace Research Engineer
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Anon, US fighter pilot
Padraig Breathnach
>I found the carrot's taste appetising. The carrot's colour was lighter than
>I expected.
Perhaps it was a parsnip.
Is there a lesson here on snipping? I did not cut any of John's words.
PB
Padraig Breathnach
>I just didn't know if this rule was limited to NASA or the US gov't, or
>not limited. I've seen inanimate possessives in print, but with today's
>proofreading that doesn't exactly provide a real imprimatur.
>
Is "today" inanimate? Or does it depend on who is living the day?
PB
John Dean
Parsnipping? I am economical with words.
John Dean
So how do NASA say things like 'The Earth's resources' or 'the moon's
surface'?
Skitt
> "John Dean" wrote:
>> I found the carrot's taste appetising. The carrot's colour was
>> lighter than I expected.
>
> Perhaps it was a parsnip.
>
> Is there a lesson here on snipping? I did not cut any of John's words.
There have been several posts lately that have made no sense because nothing
relevant was quoted. I normally don't go back to research threads, so they
have meant nothing to me.
Mary Shafer
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
> So how do NASA say things like 'The Earth's resources' or 'the moon's
> surface'?
"Earth resources" and "the surface of the moon", naturally.
I'll say this for the rule, it made me very careful about possessives
vice plurals. I don't randomly add apostrophes.
Mary
Robert Lieblich
>
> Mary Shafer wrote:
[ ... ]
> > I just didn't know if this rule was limited to NASA or the US gov't,
> > or
> > not limited. I've seen inanimate possessives in print, but with
> > today's proofreading that doesn't exactly provide a real imprimatur.
> So how do NASA say things like 'The Earth's resources' or 'the moon's
> surface'?
Oh, that one's easy. "The resources of the Earth." "The surface of
the moon."
[Old timers are free to skip what follows]
I endure similar idiocies from the Department of Justice on a
routine basis. I ghostwrite stuff for them, to which they then add
empty calories. I say "under the contract," and they change it to
"pursuant to the contract." I write "about the matter" and they
change it to "concerning [or "regarding"] the matter." I write "on
the table." and they change it to "upon the table." Occasionally I
actually write something ever-so-infinitesimally witty; it doesn't
get past the first echelon of DOJ review.
So I know what Mary's talking about. The problem is that the
"rules" under which we have both chafed are (1) arbitrary, (2)
groundless, and (3) inimical to good writing. But we are the serfs,
and the nobles get the final edit. Okay, the nobles have no idea
how to write. What has that to do with issues of power?
But here in AUE we are all free to push the rules we favor and dis
the ones we don't. 'Sall I was trying to do, Mary. In AUE you're a
liberated woman. Join the fun.
--
Bob Lieblich
Free at last, free at last
Skitt
> "John Dean" wrote:
>> So how do NASA say things like 'The Earth's resources' or 'the moon's
>> surface'?
>
> "Earth resources" and "the surface of the moon", naturally.
>
> I'll say this for the rule, it made me very careful about possessives
> vice plurals.
Didn't you mean _versus_?
> I don't randomly add apostrophes.
Good.
Mary Shafer
<Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
> So I know what Mary's talking about. The problem is that the
> "rules" under which we have both chafed are (1) arbitrary, (2)
> groundless, and (3) inimical to good writing. But we are the serfs,
> and the nobles get the final edit. Okay, the nobles have no idea
> how to write. What has that to do with issues of power?
At Dryden, which is small enough for editors not to be faceless ravagers
of lucid, limpid prose, it was possible to sneak a few things by. I
didn't get to call my optimal input paper "Looking for Mr. Goodbar: The
Search for the Perfect Input" in the end but it carried that title in
all the draft stages. I think the (male) managers thought I didn't know
what it might mean and were too embarassed to mention it to me.
We serfs get to throw sabots into the machinery now and then. Of
course, being NASA, we called it FOD, Foreign Object Damage, and had to
fill out paperwork if the machinery was an airplane or, especially, a
jet engine. Still, a little subversion is good for the soul. If it
weren't, there wouldn't be so many Dilbert cartoons on the walls of so
many cubicles.
I will say that some of the rules are not arbitrary. Some even
contribute to good writing. The half-page sentence beloved of engineers
is discouraged, for example. Acronyms get spelled out at introduction.
Clarity of exposition is valued over style.
> But here in AUE we are all free to push the rules we favor and dis
> the ones we don't. 'Sall I was trying to do, Mary. In AUE you're a
> liberated woman. Join the fun.
I can't. That's the problem. I automatically rephrase when faced with
a sentence-ending preposition. The passive voice is presented as a
reasonable alternative. To madly split an infinitive calls out the
mental editor. Subject and predicate agrees in number. Were I to use
the subjunctive, I would.
You can tell a NASA research engineer's writing a mile away, but you
can't tell her anything up close.
I've read Pinker and the others and I know some of my version of the
rules of English comes from my own internal grammar. I was lucky to
have been reared by literate and articulate parents in a literate and
articulate environment, so meeting the standard rules of English wasn't
a shock and surprise. Some of my version is a gloss laid on that first
grammar by subsequent education and employment and it's this that I
have internalized, as have we all. After thirty years of writing in one
particular style, I can't just slough it off as a snake sheds her skin.
I'm trying to write a murder mystery. I have to say that fifteen years
of writing on Usenet has probably been a large part of the
counter-training I need to keep this mystery from sounding like a
technical report. The best writing on Usenet is educated, natural
Standard English (SE), not formalized NASAesque SE. Usenet writing may
be a bit chatty and digressive, but so am I, making it easy for me to
fall into the style.
I'm going to have to ask Arnold why people like Pinker don't mention
that the grammar acquired by a child is going to be no better than the
sum of all the language the child hears during the acquisition process.
It seems to me this would be a natural observation, but I've never read
it, at least that I can remember. Too much of a value judgement, maybe?
Mary
--
Mary Shafer mil...@qnet.com
Retired Aerospace Research Engineer
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot
Mary Shafer
> Mary Shafer wrote:
> > "John Dean" wrote:
>
> >> So how do NASA say things like 'The Earth's resources' or 'the moon's
> >> surface'?
> >
> > "Earth resources" and "the surface of the moon", naturally.
> >
> > I'll say this for the rule, it made me very careful about possessives
> > vice plurals.
>
> Didn't you mean _versus_?
Well, no. I meant "vice", not "versus". It's not a competition between
the possessive team and the plural team. It's not even a comparison.
Mary
--
Mary Shafer mil...@qnet.com
Retired Aerospace Research Engineer
"A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
Anonymous US fighter pilot
Skitt
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:57:30 -0800, "Skitt" <sk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> Mary Shafer wrote:
>>> "John Dean" wrote:
>>
>>>> So how do NASA say things like 'The Earth's resources' or 'the
>>>> moon's surface'?
>>>
>>> "Earth resources" and "the surface of the moon", naturally.
>>>
>>> I'll say this for the rule, it made me very careful about
>>> possessives vice plurals.
>>
>> Didn't you mean _versus_?
>
> Well, no. I meant "vice", not "versus". It's not a competition
> between the possessive team and the plural team. It's not even a
> comparison.
Well, what did you mean?
Main Entry: 3vice
Pronunciation: 'vIs also 'vI-sE
Function: preposition
Etymology: Latin, ablative of vicis change, alternation, stead -- more at
WEEK
Date: 1770
: in the place of <I will preside, vice the absent chairman>; also : rather
than
Main Entry: veræ–°us
Pronunciation: 'v&r-s&s, -s&z
Function: preposition
Etymology: Medieval Latin, towards, against, from Latin, adverb, so as to
face, from past participle of vertere to turn
Date: 15th century
1 : AGAINST
2 : in contrast to or as the alternative of <free trade versus protection>
I would say the you were probably going for meaning 2 of versus. If not,
please enlighten me.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> You can tell a NASA research engineer's writing a mile away,
> but you can't tell her anything up close.
Because of her repellent B.O.?
[...]
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Always wondering
Bruce Tober
<mil...@qnet.com> writes
I can't tell if you''re arguing that inanimates can't possess anything
or arguing against that assumption. Assuming you're arguing the former,
what about "The carrot's colour was white".
--
| Bruce Tober, <t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> , <http://www.star-dot-star.co.uk> |
| UK, EU +44-780-374-8255 (Mobile) |
| Now represented by The Speakers Agency Ltd |
| <http://www.thespeakersagency.com/speakerdetail.asp?speaker=160> |
H G Walker aka Rambler III
Apostrophe alert!
H G Walker aka Rambler III
The possessive is discussed in Mark Israel's FAQ. Have you read it,
Charley? If so, who no chastisement?
--
Rambler III
Bruce Tober
<mil...@qnet.com> writes
>I can't. That's the problem. I automatically rephrase when faced with
>a sentence-ending preposition. The passive voice is presented as a
>reasonable alternative. To madly split an infinitive calls out the
>mental editor. Subject and predicate agrees in number. Were I to use
>the subjunctive, I would.
So what do you do when an editor tells you he thinks you ought to use
the gender neutral lingo so popular in PC governments today? What if an
editor tells she thinks gender neutral is cockamamie bullshit?
Gerry
> Oh, that one's easy. "The resources of the Earth." "The surface of
> the moon."
But aren't these possessives?
Gerry
Simon R. Hughes
> In message <ec493vs65lihg1e36...@4ax.com>, Mary Shafer
> <mil...@qnet.com> writes
> >I can't. That's the problem. I automatically rephrase when faced with
> >a sentence-ending preposition. The passive voice is presented as a
> >reasonable alternative. To madly split an infinitive calls out the
> >mental editor. Subject and predicate agrees in number. Were I to use
> >the subjunctive, I would.
>
> So what do you do when an editor tells you he thinks you ought to use
> the gender neutral lingo so popular in PC governments today? What if an
> editor tells she thinks gender neutral is cockamamie bullshit?
We all know the answer to the last one; she would consign the editor
to Hell, with the rest of us tares.
--
Simon R. Hughes
"I often think there should exist a special typographical
sign for a smile -- some sort of concave mark, a supine
round bracket" -- Vladimir Nabokov, _Strong Opinions_.
Simon R. Hughes
> In message <vhn83v081jrv83cd9...@4ax.com>, Mary Shafer
> <mil...@qnet.com> writes
> >On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:09:50 GMT, "Gerry" <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> (Though I'm no fan of his--) a spellchecker looks at each word in
> >> isolation, with no form of syntax or context checking. Thus it must pass
> >> I love carrot's
> >> because it would pass
> >> The carrot's advantage is its abundance of vitamins.
> >
> >What about the rule against an inanimate object possessing something?
> >There's no way "carrot's" can be correct if this is a real rule.
>
> I can't tell if you''re arguing that inanimates can't possess anything
> or arguing against that assumption. Assuming you're arguing the former,
> what about "The carrot's colour was white".
"The carrot was white in colour." But it is a shitty rewrite. Better
to educate the editors, or upset them. It's not like they have the
power of life and death... Well, OK. We can make fun of their utter
stupidity behind their backs.
Bruce Tober
<shu...@tromso.online.no> writes
>Thus Spake Bruce Tober:
>>
>> So what do you do when an editor tells you he thinks you ought to use
>> the gender neutral lingo so popular in PC governments today? What if an
>> editor tells she thinks gender neutral is cockamamie bullshit?
>
>We all know the answer to the last one; she would consign the editor
>to Hell, with the rest of us tares.
Speak for thyself matey. I refuse to write in gn crap. If the editor
wishes to change it, that's his prerogative, but I sure as hell won't
write it.
Bruce Tober
>>
>> I can't tell if you''re arguing that inanimates can't possess anything
>> or arguing against that assumption. Assuming you're arguing the former,
>> what about "The carrot's colour was white".
>
>"The carrot was white in colour." But it is a shitty rewrite. Better
Okay, so try the barbershop's owner was... or the train's driver was...
or the newspaper's lead story ...
R J Valentine
...
} I endure similar idiocies from the Department of Justice on a
} routine basis. I ghostwrite stuff for them, to which they then add
} empty calories. I say "under the contract," and they change it to
} "pursuant to the contract." I write "about the matter" and they
} change it to "concerning [or "regarding"] the matter." I write "on
} the table." and they change it to "upon the table." Occasionally I
} actually write something ever-so-infinitesimally witty; it doesn't
} get past the first echelon of DOJ review.
}
} So I know what Mary's talking about. The problem is that the
} "rules" under which we have both chafed are (1) arbitrary, (2)
} groundless, and (3) inimical to good writing. But we are the serfs,
} and the nobles get the final edit. Okay, the nobles have no idea
} how to write. What has that to do with issues of power?
So, when there is graffiti where people eat in the cafeteria and someone
highlights it with a circle, then someone else leaves some paper covering
it, so it doesn't get cleaned off before the supervisor checks it, the
circle about the graffiti on the table under the contract gets gigged.
Could it be that the people at DOJ have good reason to stamp out
ambiguity, even if they squash personal style?
It's bad enough when "Congress shall make no law ..." or "the right
... shall not be infringed" is considered to be ambiguous. What of the
truck you could drive through "under", "about", and "on".
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
"This isn't rocket science."
Simon R. Hughes
>
> > Oh, that one's easy. "The resources of the Earth." "The surface of
> > the moon."
>
> But aren't these possessives?
Semantically, yes; syntactically, no.
Mary Shafer
<t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ec493vs65lihg1e36...@4ax.com>, Mary Shafer
> <mil...@qnet.com> writes
> >I can't. That's the problem. I automatically rephrase when faced with
> >a sentence-ending preposition. The passive voice is presented as a
> >reasonable alternative. To madly split an infinitive calls out the
> >mental editor. Subject and predicate agrees in number. Were I to use
> >the subjunctive, I would.
>
> So what do you do when an editor tells you he thinks you ought to use
> the gender neutral lingo so popular in PC governments today? What if an
> editor tells she thinks gender neutral is cockamamie bullshit?
That issue never came up when writing technical reports as I was always
writing about actual people. However, on the few occasions that I did
generalize I wrote inclusively. Women engineers get excluded enough in
real life that some of us don't like being excluded in print.
Maria Conlon
> Simon R. Hughes writes
>> Thus Spake Bruce Tober:
>>>
>>> So what do you do when an editor tells you he thinks you ought to
>>> use the gender neutral lingo so popular in PC governments today?
>>> What if an editor tells she thinks gender neutral is cockamamie
>>> bullshit?
>>
>> We all know the answer to the last one; she would consign the editor
>> to Hell, with the rest of us tares.
>
> Speak for thyself matey. I refuse to write in gn crap. If the editor
> wishes to change it, that's his prerogative, but I sure as hell won't
> write it.
And if the editor is your boss? The person who can terminate your
employment?
You gotta stay in the game to play the game. (Or so people have told me
when I think about refusing to obey orders.)
Maria
Maria Conlon
> In message <MPG.189f6a697...@news.online.no>, Simon R.
> Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> writes
>> Thus Spake Bruce Tober:
>
>>>
>>> I can't tell if you''re arguing that inanimates can't possess
>>> anything or arguing against that assumption. Assuming you're
>>> arguing the former, what about "The carrot's colour was white".
>>
>> "The carrot was white in colour." But it is a shitty rewrite. Better
>
> Okay, so try the barbershop's owner was... or the train's driver
> was... or the newspaper's lead story ...
All can be rearranged so there would be no apostrophe. I'm trying to
think of one that can't. No luck so far...
Maria
Phil Carmody
> Well, it's a NASA rule and I wrote thirty-plus NASA reports, so for me
> it wasn't a superstition. It may not be a universal rule, but it is a
> rule. It's probably enshrined in the GPO style manual.
>
> Since I just retired after thirty years as a research engineer at NASA,
> I find that the NASA rules are pretty well ingrained in me. It's not as
> if "no inanimate possessives" is engraved on my heart, like Calais, but
> close.
>
> not limited. I've seen inanimate possessives in print, but with today's
> proofreading that doesn't exactly provide a real imprimatur.
Is NASA itself inanimate?
Are brothers inanimate?
Is the earth inanimate?
These were the first three nouns I found in their posessive form that
I saw upon browsing nasa.com, would you please like to guess which of
the three were rendered with apostrophies, and which were not, and
therefore whether NASA considers them inanimate or not?
Phil
Bruce Tober
<mcon...@sprynet.com> writes
>Bruce Tober wrote:
>> Simon R. Hughes writes
>>> Thus Spake Bruce Tober:
>>>>
>>>> So what do you do when an editor tells you he thinks you ought to
>>>> use the gender neutral lingo so popular in PC governments today?
>>>> What if an editor tells she thinks gender neutral is cockamamie
>>>> bullshit?
>>>
>>> We all know the answer to the last one; she would consign the editor
>>> to Hell, with the rest of us tares.
>>
>> Speak for thyself matey. I refuse to write in gn crap. If the editor
>> wishes to change it, that's his prerogative, but I sure as hell won't
>> write it.
>
>And if the editor is your boss? The person who can terminate your
>employment?
I'm my boss. I'm a freelancer. I write the story I'm asked to write and
let the editor edit it. The former is what I get paid for the latter is
what she gets paid for.
>You gotta stay in the game to play the game. (Or so people have told me
>when I think about refusing to obey orders.)
I don't refuse to obey orders. I propose an article idea, the editor
says go for it or not. finis.
Bruce Tober
<mil...@qnet.com> writes
>> So what do you do when an editor tells you he thinks you ought to use
>> the gender neutral lingo so popular in PC governments today? What if an
>> editor tells she thinks gender neutral is cockamamie bullshit?
>
>That issue never came up when writing technical reports as I was always
>writing about actual people. However, on the few occasions that I did
>generalize I wrote inclusively.
That's not writing "inclusively" it's being silly, PC, ungrammatical.
> Women engineers get excluded enough in
>real life that some of us don't like being excluded in print.
Yeah, that's what they say about women editors and yet in the past
twenty years or so I see more women as editors than men. funny ol'
world. ain't it.
Bruce Tober
<mcon...@sprynet.com> writes
Oh, that's your game, eh? Well fine. Anything you or I or the lamppost
write someone can rewrite it to mean the same thing, but in slightly
different wording.
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon writes
>> Bruce Tober wrote:
>>> Simon R. Hughes writes
>>>> Thus Spake Bruce Tober:
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't tell if you''re arguing that inanimates can't possess
>>>>> anything or arguing against that assumption. Assuming you're
>>>>> arguing the former, what about "The carrot's colour was white".
>>>>
>>>> "The carrot was white in colour." But it is a shitty rewrite.
>>>> Better
>>>
>>> Okay, so try the barbershop's owner was... or the train's driver
>>> was... or the newspaper's lead story ...
>>
>> All can be rearranged so there would be no apostrophe. I'm trying to
>> think of one that can't. No luck so far...
>
> Oh, that's your game, eh? Well fine. Anything you or I or the lamppost
> write someone can rewrite it to mean the same thing, but in slightly
> different wording.
"The barbershop's owner" could be "the owner of the barbershop"; in
similar fashion, we'd have "the driver of the train," and "the lead
story in the newspaper."
My "game" is to think of something using the possessive apostrophe that
*couldn't* be rewritten without it.
Maria
Padraig Breathnach
>In message <q6la3v8fos5u1ja91...@4ax.com>, Mary Shafer
><mil...@qnet.com> writes
>>On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 14:45:38 +0000, Bruce Tober
>><t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>
>>> So what do you do when an editor tells you he thinks you ought to use
>>> the gender neutral lingo so popular in PC governments today? What if an
>>> editor tells she thinks gender neutral is cockamamie bullshit?
>>
>>That issue never came up when writing technical reports as I was always
>>writing about actual people. However, on the few occasions that I did
>>generalize I wrote inclusively.
>
>That's not writing "inclusively" it's being silly, PC, ungrammatical.
>
It seems to me that grouping "PC" with "silly" and "ungrammatical" is
little more than a handy way of rejecting it without bothering to
discuss it.
PB
Bruce Tober
Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> writes
What's left to discuss after the volumes of debate on this and other
newsgroups, lists and other fora?
But if you wish to discuss, just let me know.
But, my starter for ten is that, amongst other things I think it
patronising to women in some respect to have to do a "when the editor
calls I usually take his/her call" or "When the boss invites me for a
drink I often take her up on it. But sometimes I tell him to get
stuffed" or "If a senator rings tell them I'm busy." To even have to
think about which format to use is absurd. It's patronising in that most
intelligent women will, or should, realise that we're condescending to
some ungrammatical word games just to make some women feel a bit better.
Bruce Tober
>> Oh, that's your game, eh? Well fine. Anything you or I or the lamppost
>> write someone can rewrite it to mean the same thing, but in slightly
>> different wording.
>
>"The barbershop's owner" could be "the owner of the barbershop"; in
>similar fashion, we'd have "the driver of the train," and "the lead
>story in the newspaper."
>
>My "game" is to think of something using the possessive apostrophe that
>*couldn't* be rewritten without it.
Oh, I see. Have you managed yet. I've not.
Padraig Breathnach
>In message <ckcb3vssfifludosl...@4ax.com>, Padraig
>Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> writes
>>It seems to me that grouping "PC" with "silly" and "ungrammatical" is
>>little more than a handy way of rejecting it without bothering to
>>discuss it.
>
>What's left to discuss after the volumes of debate on this and other
>newsgroups, lists and other fora?
>
>But if you wish to discuss, just let me know.
>
>But, my starter for ten is that, amongst other things I think it
>patronising to women in some respect to have to do a "when the editor
>calls I usually take his/her call" or "When the boss invites me for a
>drink I often take her up on it. But sometimes I tell him to get
>stuffed" or "If a senator rings tell them I'm busy." To even have to
>think about which format to use is absurd. It's patronising in that most
>intelligent women will, or should, realise that we're condescending to
>some ungrammatical word games just to make some women feel a bit better.
I would not call that a starter for ten. Your illustrations are bad
because they involve bad writing -- but I think you did that
intentionally. It is possible to write well and inclusively. There are
two prerequisites: an ability to write well, and an appropriate
mindset.
I do not suggest that one eschews personal pronouns. In your first two
examples it would be expected that the sex of the editor or the boss
is a given, so there would be no need to mess about with language in a
pretence of inclusiveness or PC-ness.
In your third example, a good alternative -- not in the least awkward
or contrived -- is "If a senator rings, say I'm busy".
There's nothing difficult about it, and it does not involve bad
writing.
PB
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Could it be that the people at DOJ have good reason to stamp out
> ambiguity, even if they squash personal style?
If you can tell me how "on the table" exceeds in ambiguity "upon the
table," I would be most grateful.
>
> It's bad enough when "Congress shall make no law ..." or "the right
> ... shall not be infringed" is considered to be ambiguous. What of the
> truck you could drive through "under", "about", and "on".
I don't write statutes for DOJ. I write briefs for filing in court.
The judge doesn't interpret the briefs but reads them for guidance
in deciding cases.
The rest you can take up with, say, Nino Scalia.
--
Bob Lieblich
Honest lawyer
R J Valentine
} R J Valentine wrote:
}
} [ ... ]
}
}> Could it be that the people at DOJ have good reason to stamp out
}> ambiguity, even if they squash personal style?
}
} If you can tell me how "on the table" exceeds in ambiguity "upon the
} table," I would be most grateful.
See that "[ ... ]" up there? That's where I did that. For your
convenience, here it is again:
So, when there is graffiti where people eat in the cafeteria and someone
highlights it with a circle, then someone else leaves some paper covering
it, so it doesn't get cleaned off before the supervisor checks it, the
circle about the graffiti on the table under the contract gets gigged.
The contract was placed or dropped on or upon the table. The graffiti and
the circle around them were written on the table, but not upon the table.
Uponness is a proper subset of onness. Besides the motion, it implies a
certain separateness. It's a narrower preposition.
}> It's bad enough when "Congress shall make no law ..." or "the right
}> ... shall not be infringed" is considered to be ambiguous. What of the
}> truck you could drive through "under", "about", and "on".
}
} I don't write statutes for DOJ. I write briefs for filing in court.
} The judge doesn't interpret the briefs but reads them for guidance
} in deciding cases.
}
} The rest you can take up with, say, Nino Scalia.
Dropping names, are we? I'm of two minds about him. On the one hand, he
strikes me as one of those "conservatives" who thinks that the government
can do anything it can get away with. On the other hand, I saw him in
action when some clever lawyer was smartmouthing Thurgood Marshall, who
was trying to make a subtle point. Antonin Scalia drove the point home to
the lawyer in a way he's not likely to forget. So I'm willing to take my
chances with him.
What I'm guessing is that your DOJ editors are trying to reduce the
ambiguity that we so much enjoy here on alt.usage.english. Good here, not
so good there.
} --
} Bob Lieblich
} Honest lawyer
See? That's good here. Go ahead and try it there.
R Fontana
> It's bad enough when "Congress shall make no law ..." or "the right
> ... shall not be infringed" is considered to be ambiguous.
I wouldn't say that the language of the First Amendment is really
considered to be *ambiguous* by most everyone. Rather, the mainstream
view is that, as clear as the language is, it can't be read literally,
because otherwise you'd have absurd and unworkable results (e.g.,
requiring demonstrators to have a permit, or requiring Sparky to be
licensed in order to operate his ham radio, or prohibiting the use of a
Tannoy in the streets of a residential neighborhood at night, would be
unconstitutional [for simplicity, assume that we're in D.C. and that
it doesn't have home rule so we don't have to deal with the 'Congress'
part, a different kettle of fish]). Hugo Black and his pal Bill O.
Douglas argued that the First Amendment had to be read literally, an
absolute prohibition on regulations of speech, but no other SCOTUS
justices have held such an extreme view.
At the other extreme, Bob Bork has argued that the First
Amendment's free speech/press clause should be restricted to
abridgements of political speech, since this is all that the framers
of the amendment had in mind (in fact, they had something narrower in
mind, a prohibition on prior restraints). Though he has the history
right, this is a non-mainstream view. I think his rationale for
this restricted interpretation is his take on the (mainstream)
position that when interpreting relatively open-ended wording in the
Constitution, judges should ordinarily find some general method of
constraining the reading so that damage to the political process is
minimized.
Bruce Tober
Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> writes
>Bruce Tober <t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>But, my starter for ten is that, amongst other things I think it
>>patronising to women in some respect to have to do a "when the editor
>>calls I usually take his/her call" or "When the boss invites me for a
>>drink I often take her up on it. But sometimes I tell him to get
>>stuffed" or "If a senator rings tell them I'm busy." To even have to
>>think about which format to use is absurd. It's patronising in that most
>>intelligent women will, or should, realise that we're condescending to
>>some ungrammatical word games just to make some women feel a bit better.
>
>intentionally. It is possible to write well and inclusively. There are
>two prerequisites: an ability to write well, and an appropriate
>mindset.
That's true of almost any writing.
>I do not suggest that one eschews personal pronouns. In your first two
>examples it would be expected that the sex of the editor or the boss
>is a given,
Not necessarily, esp in the case of the editor, if the speaker is a
freelance who's never had contact with the editor, "Terry Farber" (who
in the UK would very likely be male and in the US most likely female,
but in either case could be the opposite). And agreed, the boss item is
a flawed example, my only excuse being it was late and I was tired.
>so there would be no need to mess about with language in a
>pretence of inclusiveness or PC-ness.
But we've almost all of us seen examples of both in use in print.
>In your third example, a good alternative -- not in the least awkward
>or contrived -- is "If a senator rings, say I'm busy".
>
>There's nothing difficult about it, and it does not involve bad
>writing.
My lack of appropriate examples shows only that I'm tired of the debate.
Alan Walker
> I saw this link on a website:
>
> Games & Demo's
>
> I think the greengrocers apostrophe is used for words whose plurals are
> unfamiliar, or when there might be some confusion like "demos" for "demoes."
Charles Riggs
<Walker...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:44:10 GMT, "Gerry" <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Linz" wrote
>>>
>>>>Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>My guess is that the greengrocers' apo'strophe is used mostly for
>>>>>words ending in a vowel. Nouns ending in vowels are in a minority
>>>>>in this language, making it easier to come up with mistakes
>>>>>like "potatoe".
>>>>>
>>>>Would that this were so.
>>>>
>>>Amen.
>>>
>>>Many seem to genuinely believe that the way to form the plural is to add
>>>apostrophe-s. A few seem to believe that an apostrophe is required before
>>>every s.
>>>
>>>Someone told me of seeing a greengrocer's sign:
>>> Potato's
>>> Tomato's
>>> Asparagu's
>>> Carrot's
>>>
>>>Perhaps a greengrocer was having us on?
>>>
>>
>>I'd like to think so, but I fear not.
>>
>The possessive is discussed in Mark Israel's FAQ. Have you read it,
>Charley? If so, who no chastisement?
What an asinine comment. Do you think my Mama raised a stupid boy?
--
Charles Riggs
chriggs |at| eircom |dot| com
Charles Riggs
<t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> wrote:
>Oh, that's your game, eh? Well fine. Anything you or I or the lamppost
>write someone can rewrite it to mean the same thing, but in slightly
>different wording.
Isn't this the Bruce Tober we had to put up with a year or more ago?
He sounds, from these few posts today, like a real asshole, whether he
is or isn't the original. Oh well, life is like that: some are good,
some are not so good.
Charles Riggs
<Walker...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:21:26 -0000, "Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>
>>>>My guess is that the greengrocers' apo'strophe is used mostly for
>>>>words ending in a vowel. Nouns ending in vowels are in a minority
>>>>in this language, making it easier to come up with mistakes
>>>>like "potatoe".
>>>>
>>>Would that this were so. On my way home every evening I pass a garage
>>>advertising Auto's, Peugeot's, Volkswagen's and a variety of other
>>>secondhand Car's.
>>>
>>
>>Mitsubishi's are nice. I'll sell you mine for a low low, one-day-only,
>>chance-in-a-lifetime, buy-it-before-it's-gone price of 5000 euros.
>>(Gotta pay the credit card company for that telescope and new laptop,
>>`ya know.)
>>
>Apostrophe alert!
You mean to say Japan has the same rule we have?
Phil Carmody
> My "game" is to think of something using the possessive apostrophe that
> *couldn't* be rewritten without it.
I don't see idioms such as "for fuck's sake" being equivalent semantically
to "for the sake of a fuck".
Phil
mb
...
> I wouldn't say that the language of the First Amendment is really
> considered to be *ambiguous* by most everyone. Rather, the mainstream
> view is that, as clear as the language is, it can't be read literally,
> because otherwise you'd have absurd and unworkable results
Interesting reading, but in summary it's lawyer's gobledygook, with
all due respect. So the question: what does "no" mean in lawyerese?
When does it become "yes and no", when "maybe"? And, if it was written
in lawyerese, why let people read it (some of us idiots do read it as
if it were plain English)?
Bruce Tober
<chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
Thank you riggsie babie, so nice to see you're still hanging around here
slanging people off rather than making any kind of useful contributions.
Bruce Tober
<chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
>
>Do you think my Mama raised a stupid boy?
All evidence I've seen would so indicate.
Tony Cooper
<t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> wrote:
> "Terry Farber" (who
>in the UK would very likely be male and in the US most likely female,
>but in either case could be the opposite).
No wonder it's so difficult to get into the bathroom on transatlantic
flights. People like Farber are in there snipping off bits or adding
on bits.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
Simon R. Hughes
> In message <c2lc3vofrbs5j4ubj...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
> <chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
> >On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 20:07:16 +0000, Bruce Tober
> ><t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Oh, that's your game, eh? Well fine. Anything you or I or the lamppost
> >>write someone can rewrite it to mean the same thing, but in slightly
> >>different wording.
> >
> >Isn't this the Bruce Tober we had to put up with a year or more ago?
> >He sounds, from these few posts today, like a real asshole, whether he
> >is or isn't the original. Oh well, life is like that: some are good,
> >some are not so good.
>
> Thank you riggsie babie, so nice to see you're still hanging around here
> slanging people off rather than making any kind of useful contributions.
Hang on a bit. Riggsie baby hangs around here slanging (sic) people
off, as well as making some kind of useful contributions. Like the
rest of us -- except the Irish and their wannabes.
--
Simon R. Hughes
"I often think there should exist a special typographical
sign for a smile -- some sort of concave mark, a supine
round bracket" -- Vladimir Nabokov, _Strong Opinions_.
Padraig Breathnach
>Hang on a bit. Riggsie baby hangs around here slanging (sic) people
>off, as well as making some kind of useful contributions. Like the
>rest of us -- except the Irish and their wannabes.
Riggsie baby claims to be Irish.
I hear the yapping of a poodle.
PB
djarvinen
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:38:56 -0500, Robert Lieblich
> <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > So I know what Mary's talking about. The problem is that the
> > "rules" under which we have both chafed are (1) arbitrary, (2)
> > groundless, and (3) inimical to good writing. But we are the serfs,
> > and the nobles get the final edit. Okay, the nobles have no idea
> > how to write. What has that to do with issues of power?
>
> At Dryden, which is small enough for editors not to be faceless ravagers
> of lucid, limpid prose, it was possible to sneak a few things by. I
> didn't get to call my optimal input paper "Looking for Mr. Goodbar: The
> Search for the Perfect Input" in the end but it carried that title in
> all the draft stages. I think the (male) managers thought I didn't know
> what it might mean and were too embarassed to mention it to me.
>
> We serfs get to throw sabots into the machinery now and then. Of
> course, being NASA, we called it FOD, Foreign Object Damage, and had to
> fill out paperwork if the machinery was an airplane or, especially, a
> jet engine. Still, a little subversion is good for the soul. If it
> weren't, there wouldn't be so many Dilbert cartoons on the walls of so
> many cubicles.
>
> I will say that some of the rules are not arbitrary. Some even
> contribute to good writing. The half-page sentence beloved of engineers
> is discouraged, for example. Acronyms get spelled out at introduction.
> Clarity of exposition is valued over style.
>
> > But here in AUE we are all free to push the rules we favor and dis
> > the ones we don't. 'Sall I was trying to do, Mary. In AUE you're a
> > liberated woman. Join the fun.
>
> I can't. That's the problem. I automatically rephrase when faced with
> a sentence-ending preposition. The passive voice is presented as a
> reasonable alternative. To madly split an infinitive calls out the
> mental editor. Subject and predicate agrees in number. Were I to use
> the subjunctive, I would.
>
> You can tell a NASA research engineer's writing a mile away, but you
> can't tell her anything up close.
>
> I've read Pinker and the others and I know some of my version of the
> rules of English comes from my own internal grammar. I was lucky to
> have been reared by literate and articulate parents in a literate and
> articulate environment, so meeting the standard rules of English wasn't
> a shock and surprise. Some of my version is a gloss laid on that first
> grammar by subsequent education and employment and it's this that I
> have internalized, as have we all. After thirty years of writing in one
> particular style, I can't just slough it off as a snake sheds her skin.
>
> I'm trying to write a murder mystery. I have to say that fifteen years
> of writing on Usenet has probably been a large part of the
> counter-training I need to keep this mystery from sounding like a
> technical report. The best writing on Usenet is educated, natural
> Standard English (SE), not formalized NASAesque SE. Usenet writing may
> be a bit chatty and digressive, but so am I, making it easy for me to
> fall into the style.
>
> I'm going to have to ask Arnold why people like Pinker don't mention
> that the grammar acquired by a child is going to be no better than the
> sum of all the language the child hears during the acquisition process.
> It seems to me this would be a natural observation, but I've never read
> it, at least that I can remember. Too much of a value judgement, maybe?
>
> Mary
A good candidate, in my opinion, for Post of the Week (Mary's, not
Robert's although Robert certainly has his share. I almost snipped
the Robert part but then I feared AUE retribution.)
DJ
Bruce Tober
>> Thank you riggsie babie, so nice to see you're still hanging around here
>> slanging people off rather than making any kind of useful contributions.
>
>Hang on a bit. Riggsie baby hangs around here slanging (sic) people
>off, as well as making some kind of useful contributions. Like the
>rest of us -- except the Irish and their wannabes.
I can't recall ever seeing him do so, but that could be because I've
usually had him killfiled.
Bruce Tober
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:41:58 +0000, Bruce Tober
><t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Terry Farber" (who
>>in the UK would very likely be male and in the US most likely female,
>>but in either case could be the opposite).
>
>No wonder it's so difficult to get into the bathroom on transatlantic
>flights. People like Farber are in there snipping off bits or adding
>on bits.
Exactly so.
Bruce Tober
Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> writes
Please don't denigrate the poodles. They're disgusting enuf without
having riggsie baby likened to them.
Simon R. Hughes
> Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>
> >Hang on a bit. Riggsie baby hangs around here slanging (sic) people
> >off, as well as making some kind of useful contributions. Like the
> >rest of us -- except the Irish and their wannabes.
>
> Riggsie baby claims to be Irish.
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001
Message-ID: <aa29ht0pal99q4dh3...@4ax.com>
"I'm not Irish" -- Charles Riggs.
> I hear the yapping of a poodle.
Like many other things you "hear": it's in your head.
Padraig Breathnach
>Thus Spake Padraig Breathnach:
>> Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>>
>> >Hang on a bit. Riggsie baby hangs around here slanging (sic) people
>> >off, as well as making some kind of useful contributions. Like the
>> >rest of us -- except the Irish and their wannabes.
>>
>> Riggsie baby claims to be Irish.
>
>Date: Wed, 30 May 2001
>Message-ID: <aa29ht0pal99q4dh3...@4ax.com>
>
>"I'm not Irish" -- Charles Riggs.
>
Don't believe everything Charles says. He is an Irish citizen. He
actually asked to become one of us. I understand that this makes him
happy, and I am quite pleased about that -- even if, for the present,
he has me killfiled.
>> I hear the yapping of a poodle.
>
>Like many other things you "hear": it's in your head.
>
Of course it is: I was using language figuratively. Do you need that
idea explained to you?
PB
Simon R. Hughes
You can do that with language?
Linz
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:21:26 -0000, "Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk>
> wrote:
>> Would that this were so. On my way home every evening I pass a garage
>> advertising Auto's, Peugeot's, Volkswagen's and a variety of other
>> secondhand Car's.
>
> Mitsubishi's are nice. I'll sell you mine for a low low, one-day-only,
> chance-in-a-lifetime, buy-it-before-it's-gone price of 5000 euros.
> (Gotta pay the credit card company for that telescope and new laptop,
> `ya know.)
I could be tempted but since I don't drive I won't be choosing the vehicle.
A Land Rover could be on useful.
Charles Riggs
<t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <70lc3v4gj9vtek1ml...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
><chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
>
>>
>>Do you think my Mama raised a stupid boy?
>
>All evidence I've seen would so indicate.
Since you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole in the
ground, no-one could expect you to recognize evidence of any sort,
when you see it. You are, in fact, among the most dim-witted of all
the people who have, in my five-year experience here, ever posted to
alt.usage.english. The fools and the trolls, they come and they go,
but I remember your stumbling rants from the past, you see. On your
unfortunate return to alt.usage.english, you would have been wise to
post under another name, but wise is one thing you will never be.
Bruce Tober
<chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 11:44:23 +0000, Bruce Tober
><t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <70lc3v4gj9vtek1ml...@4ax.com>, Charles Riggs
>><chrigg...@eircom.net> writes
>>
>>>
>>>Do you think my Mama raised a stupid boy?
>>
>>All evidence I've seen would so indicate.
>
>Since you don't know the difference between your ass and a hole in the
>ground, no-one could expect you to recognize evidence of any sort,
>when you see it. You are, in fact, among the most dim-witted of all
>the people who have, in my five-year experience here, ever posted to
>alt.usage.english. The fools and the trolls, they come and they go,
>but I remember your stumbling rants from the past, you see. On your
>unfortunate return to alt.usage.english, you would have been wise to
>post under another name, but wise is one thing you will never be.
charlie, bubbelah. get fucked. it sounds as though it's been too long
since you've had that pleasure.
PLONK
Professor Redwine
told me
: when I think about refusing to obey orders.)
But that just shows the weakness of the system. Try and convince
you that it is for your own good. If it was, you would figure it
out. The fact is, that there is only one thing better than a
little insurrection and behind-the-scenes betrayal of the boss.
A LOT OF IT!
Ahem. Maybe I should have waited until my delayed paycheck
arrives before logging on to the ng...
Geoff Butler
>On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:09:50 GMT, "Gerry" <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> (Though I'm no fan of his--) a spellchecker looks at each word in
>> isolation, with no form of syntax or context checking. Thus it must pass
>> I love carrot's
>> because it would pass
>> The carrot's advantage is its abundance of vitamins.
>
>What about the rule against an inanimate object possessing something?
>There's no way "carrot's" can be correct if this is a real rule.
As lots of people have already said, it's not a rule except in the sense
of an imposed style.
The fact that the grammatical term is "possessive" doesn't imply
anything about anything, any more than the grammatical term "illative"
implies that subject of the verb has to be able to speak Latin.
If it helps, use the term "genitive" instead of "possessive". Then all
you have to do is to agonise over whether you're allowed to say
"carrot's advantage" because inanimate objects can't beget anything. And
if you do go down that route, bear in mind the fact that only males
beget, so the inevitable conclusions might be rather distasteful.
(As it happens, I'd prefer "the advantage of the carrot" on the grounds
of style, but that's not always the case.)
--
-ler
dcw
Geoff Butler <ge...@gbutler.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Mary Shafer <mil...@qnet.com> wrote
>>What about the rule against an inanimate object possessing something?
>>There's no way "carrot's" can be correct if this is a real rule.
>
>As lots of people have already said, it's not a rule except in the sense
>of an imposed style.
There's more to it than this. English has a very long history of
getting rid of inflections, and the possessive is one of the few
survivors. In UK English, up to about a hundred years ago, it too
was on the retreat, and was largely restricted to animate beings and
a few special cases. Since then it has made a remarkable recovery,
possibly in part by re-introduction from US English, but there are
still people who find "carrot's" unidiomatic -- I'm one of them.
>(As it happens, I'd prefer "the advantage of the carrot" on the grounds
>of style, but that's not always the case.)
And so, it seems, are you.
David
Henrik Eriksson
> My "game" is to think of something using the possessive apostrophe that
> *couldn't* be rewritten without it.
Stop that game, for heaven's sake!
Dena Jo
>> Could it be that the people at DOJ have good reason to stamp out
>> ambiguity, even if they squash personal style?
>
> If you can tell me how "on the table" exceeds in ambiguity "upon the
> table," I would be most grateful.
I'm coming into the discussion very late. Nevertheless --
It's been my experience that, as a group, attorneys are the worst offenders
when it comes to saying something in 12 words that could easily and more
clearly be said in 4.
Present company excepted, of course.
JMO. YMMV.
--
Dena Jo
Tony Cooper
>Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Could it be that the people at DOJ have good reason to stamp out
>>> ambiguity, even if they squash personal style?
>>
>> If you can tell me how "on the table" exceeds in ambiguity "upon the
>> table," I would be most grateful.
>
>I'm coming into the discussion very late. Nevertheless --
>
>It's been my experience that, as a group, attorneys are the worst offenders
>when it comes to saying something in 12 words that could easily and more
>clearly be said in 4.
>
Only if you don't know a small town newspaper stringer.
Bruce Tober
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> writes
>On 30 Jan 2003 19:34:36 GMT, Dena Jo <den...@csNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Could it be that the people at DOJ have good reason to stamp out
>>>> ambiguity, even if they squash personal style?
>>>
>>> If you can tell me how "on the table" exceeds in ambiguity "upon the
>>> table," I would be most grateful.
>>
>>I'm coming into the discussion very late. Nevertheless --
>>
>>It's been my experience that, as a group, attorneys are the worst offenders
>>when it comes to saying something in 12 words that could easily and more
>>clearly be said in 4.
>>
>
>Only if you don't know a small town newspaper stringer.
Er, ax chew ally that applies to all but a small minotiry of freelance
journalists. Most of us get paid by the word.
Geoff Butler
Maybe, but in other cases it seems perfectly idiomatic. The Earth's
atmosphere. The book's cover. I think the unidiomaticity is more to do
with "advantage" than with "carrot's".
The fact that the grammatical term "possessive" has a common Latin
origin with the verb "possess" seems to me to imply nothing. To dictate
that the grammatical term implies the verb, and that the verb requires
the possession of a soul, therefore the grammatical form can only be
applied to things that possess a soul, seems to me fail on all three
counts. It smacks of Lowth rather than of common sense.
--
-ler
dcw
Geoff Butler <ge...@gbutler.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>dcw <D.C....@ukc.ac.uk> wrote
[Stuff about possessives of inanimate objects like carrots]
>Maybe, but in other cases it seems perfectly idiomatic. The Earth's
>atmosphere. The book's cover. I think the unidiomaticity is more to do
>with "advantage" than with "carrot's".
Things like "the Earth" were what I had in mind as "special cases".
I don't think I'd say "the book's cover", though I probably wouldn't
notice if someone else did.
>The fact that the grammatical term "possessive" has a common Latin
>origin with the verb "possess" seems to me to imply nothing.
Absolutely; the name has nothing to do with it.
David
Oliver Cromm
>
> I'm going to have to ask Arnold why people like Pinker don't mention
> that the grammar acquired by a child is going to be no better than the
> sum of all the language the child hears during the acquisition
> process. It seems to me this would be a natural observation, but I've
> never read it, at least that I can remember. Too much of a value
> judgement, maybe?
No, the amazing thing is that it is better. At least the child filters out
most of the talk where the grown-ups break their own rules. And children
make their own generalizations. Of course, better in the sense that you
intended, namely that certain people's rules are better than others', is
taboo for linguists; you could as well say that some people sing better
lullabies to their children than others.
Oliver
frank green
"Simon R. Hughes" wrote:
When did [sic] lose its brackets and italics?
frank green
Mary Shafer wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:09:50 GMT, "Gerry" <no...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > (Though I'm no fan of his--) a spellchecker looks at each word in
> > isolation, with no form of syntax or context checking. Thus it must pass
> > I love carrot's
> > because it would pass
> > The carrot's advantage is its abundance of vitamins.
>
> What about the rule against an inanimate object possessing something?
> There's no way "carrot's" can be correct if this is a real rule.
>
> Mary
No such rule--except for low stylists. It's just plain stupid.
frank green
Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> Well, it's a NASA rule and I wrote thirty-plus NASA reports, so for me
> it wasn't a superstition. It may not be a universal rule, but it is a
> rule. It's probably enshrined in the GPO style manual.
It is not in the GPO.
>
frank green
Skitt wrote:
> Mary Shafer wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 17:57:30 -0800, "Skitt" <sk...@attbi.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Mary Shafer wrote:
> >>> "John Dean" wrote:
> >>
> >>>> So how do NASA say things like 'The Earth's resources' or 'the
> >>>> moon's surface'?
> >>>
> >>> "Earth resources" and "the surface of the moon", naturally.
> >>>
> >>> I'll say this for the rule, it made me very careful about
> >>> possessives vice plurals.
> >>
> >> Didn't you mean _versus_?
> >
> > Well, no. I meant "vice", not "versus". It's not a competition
> > between the possessive team and the plural team. It's not even a
> > comparison.
>
> Well, what did you mean?
>
> Main Entry: 3vice
> Pronunciation: 'vIs also 'vI-sE
> Function: preposition
> Etymology: Latin, ablative of vicis change, alternation, stead -- more at
> WEEK
> Date: 1770
> : in the place of <I will preside, vice the absent chairman>; also : rather
> than
>
> Main Entry: veræ–°us
> Pronunciation: 'v&r-s&s, -s&z
> Function: preposition
> Etymology: Medieval Latin, towards, against, from Latin, adverb, so as to
> face, from past participle of vertere to turn
> Date: 15th century
> 1 : AGAINST
> 2 : in contrast to or as the alternative of <free trade versus protection>
>
> I would say the you were probably going for meaning 2 of versus. If not,
> please enlighten me.
> --
> Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
> I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
> -- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Of course, she meant "versus." However, I doubt that you'll be able to
convince her.
frank green
Mary Shafer wrote:
As Churchill said, "That is something of which I will not put."
> The passive voice is presented as a
> reasonable alternative. To madly split an infinitive calls out the
> mental editor.
Many infinitives benefit by being split.
> Subject and predicate agrees in number.
Cute. I like that.
> Were I to use
> the subjunctive, I would.
>
> You can tell a NASA research engineer's writing a mile away, but you
> can't tell her anything up close.
>
> I've read Pinker and the others and I know some of my version of the
> rules of English comes from my own internal grammar. I was lucky to
> have been reared by literate and articulate parents in a literate and
> articulate environment, so meeting the standard rules of English wasn't
> a shock and surprise. Some of my version is a gloss laid on that first
> grammar by subsequent education and employment and it's this that I
> have internalized, as have we all. After thirty years of writing in one
> particular style, I can't just slough it off as a snake sheds her skin.
>
> I'm trying to write a murder mystery.
Just remember the grammar of fiction is the grammar of the psyche, not
English grammar.
> I have to say that fifteen years
> of writing on Usenet has probably been a large part of the
> counter-training
"Training?" I think you mean "education" -- anything but operant
conditioning.
> I need to keep this mystery from sounding like a
> technical report. The best writing on Usenet is educated, natural
> Standard English (SE), not formalized NASAesque SE. Usenet writing may
> be a bit chatty and digressive, but so am I, making it easy for me to
> fall into the style.
>
> I'm going to have to ask Arnold why people like Pinker don't mention
> that the grammar acquired by a child is going to be no better than the
> sum of all the language the child hears during the acquisition process.
> It seems to me this would be a natural observation, but I've never read
> it, at least that I can remember. Too much of a value judgement,
Ah, the British spelling. I do much prefer it. I hate having to use the
American spelling.
> maybe?
>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer mil...@qnet.com
> Retired Aerospace Research Engineer
> "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."
> Anonymous US fighter pilot
Raymond S. Wise
news:3E3DD1BF...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Mary Shafer wrote:
>
[...]
> > I'm trying to write a murder mystery.
>
> Just remember the grammar of fiction is the grammar of the psyche, not
> English grammar.
>
It is highly recommended that works of fiction written for English-language
speakers contain grammatical English sentences. Whether the grammar used is
standard or nonstandard is, of course, an artistic decision.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Laura F Spira
> As Churchill said, "That is something of which I will not put."
The point is lost in your misquote. The first half of the sentence is
quoted in various forms but the final words were definitely "up with
which I will not put."
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Simon R. Hughes
> As Churchill said, "That is something of which I will not put."
Someone should have taught Churchill to write. And his Nobel prize
should have gone to another.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Simon R. Hughes" wrote:
>
> > Hang on a bit. Riggsie baby hangs around here slanging (sic)
> > people off, as well as making some kind of useful
> > contributions. Like the rest of us -- except the Irish and their
> > wannabes.
>
> When did [sic] lose its brackets and italics?
It lost its italics long ago. Neither MW nor Van Leunen (_A Handbook
for Scholars_) even mention that it might be italicized. As to the
brackets, they are an indication that the person doing the quoting has
inserted material. So in brackets it's roughly "That's the way it was
in the original, not my error". Simon, on the other hand is using it
on his own text to mean "That's not an error; I mean it that way".
Parens are often used for that sense. Had he used brackets, it would
have made it look as though you were the one who sic'd him.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
frank green
Laura F Spira wrote:
Thank you. You are quite right. I have no idea why I misquoted.
Charles Riggs
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Thus Spake frank green:
>
>> As Churchill said, "That is something of which I will not put."
>
>Someone should have taught Churchill to write. And his Nobel prize
>should have gone to another.
That is bollocks, IMHO. Churchill is one of the greatest men who ever
lived, full stop. His history of the war was a masterpiece, so it is
bollocks to say the man can't write.
Would that we had a man of such courage and integrity running either
America or Great Britain, today.
Matti Lamprhey
> Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
> >Thus Spake frank green:
> >
> >> As Churchill said, "That is something of which I will not put."
> >
> >Someone should have taught Churchill to write. And his Nobel prize
> >should have gone to another.
>
> That is bollocks, IMHO. Churchill is one of the greatest men who ever
> lived, full stop. His history of the war was a masterpiece, so it is
> bollocks to say the man can't write.
>
> Would that we had a man of such courage and integrity running either
> America or Great Britain, today.
And just to prove your point, Charles, here's a topical Churchillism:
"Americans will always do the right thing -- after they have exhausted
every other possibility."
Matti