Ask Gillianren

[crosscountry]

On another board I used to frequent we had a section called "Ask so-and-so" who was considered an expert in his field. This worked for several people, and often we learned a lot from those threads. People asked questions (all in the same thread) and got answers from the so-and-so. Usually the responses were both humorous and insightful. I was kind of hoping for something like that here.

Since Gillianren is considered our local expert in grammar, I thought I'd start a thread and ask a question. If this is inappropriate please let me know or delete it. I don't want to stir anything up. Maybe if she doesn't mind we can have some questions answered.



My question is when should we use may or might? I find myself using them interchangeably although I suspect they are not the same.

[samkent]

You MAY use it where I MIGHT.

Is that correct?? It's feels right. I hope it's right.

[Swift]

You may start such a thread Crosscountry. Gillianren might not answer your question. ;)

[Chuck]

In most threads like this that I've seen elsewhere, the question answerer starts the thread.

Is "whom" considered archaic yet? Can we stop using it?

[Lianachan]

I would answer, but I wasn't invited!

[rommel543]

I always wonder about affect and effect.

[pghnative]

Is "whom" considered archaic yet? Can we stop using it?Hey, I can answer that one. (Despite the fact that I'm not a grammarian, nor do I play one on TV).

"Who" is a subject noun, while "whom" is an object noun. So wherever the noun is an object noun (most obvious example is when it is the object of a preposition), "whom" should be used.

e.g.
Who rang that bell? ("Who" is the subject noun of the sentance.)
For whom did the bell ring? ("whom" is object of the prepositional phrase "for whom".)

[pghnative]

I always wonder about affect and effect.In their most common uses, "affect" is a verb, while "effect" is a noun.

[hhEb09'1]

Since Gillianren is considered our local expert in grammar, I thought I'd start a thread and ask a question. If this is inappropriate please let me know or delete it. I don't want to stir anything up. Maybe if she doesn't mind we can have some questions answered.How about change the thread title to "Ask the Grammar Person" to invite others to participate? Just in case Gillianren is on vacation and an emergency arises. :)

[Fazor]

"Who" is a subject noun, while "whom" is an object noun. So wherever the noun is an object noun (most obvious example is when it is the object of a preposition), "whom" should be used.


Heh, something to that effect was just on a re-run of "The Office" (US version) the other night.

[pghnative]

Heh, something to that effect was just on a re-run of "The Office" (US version) the other night.Good use of "effect" as a noun.:lol:

(When I first learned the distinction, I was annoyed that the "e" word wasn't a verb.)

[Tucson_Tim]

Dear Gillian,

My mother-in-law has been living with us for the last five months and she is really getting on my nerves. Would you be so kind and send me the recipe for oleander tea?

Sincerely,

Desperate in Tucson

[Fazor]

Good use of "effect" as a noun.:lol:


"Stewie Griffin built a device he could use to affect the weather, but in the end, it had little effect."

[Gillianren]

Dear Gillian,

My mother-in-law has been living with us for the last five months and she is really getting on my nerves. Would you be so kind and send me the recipe for oleander tea?

Sincerely,

Desperate in Tucson

Dear Desperate in Tucson,

First, you take some oleander. Then, you make tea out of it.

Sincerely, Gillian

Is oleander as ubiquitous there as it is in Southern California?

In all seriousness, though, I've no problem answering as many questions as people like, and I hardly ever go on vacation. I do agree with "ask the grammar person" more on the principle that these threads always seem to get started while I'm asleep. Sometimes, there are then posts at five in the morning my time demanding to know why I haven't answered yet!

So, then. In order.

"Might" generally indicates that the possibility is more slender than "may" would be. "May" can be used to indicate permission. And "might" is the past tense of "may" anyway.

"Whom" is not archaic. Admittedly, poetry can be, especially older poetry, but doesn't "Ask not for who the bell tolls" sound silly? Or even "who the bell tolls for"?

"Effect" and "affect" have pretty much been covered, and I'm not going to go into "tedious grammar person" mode on the subject unless pressed.

[Tucson_Tim]

Is oleander as ubiquitous there as it is in Southern California?


Yes, it is quite common here where planted. Red, white, and pink flowers. It seems to handle the desert heat and lack of rain almost as well as the native plants, but I've never seen any plants out in the open desert.

[Otherworldly]

Is "whom" considered archaic yet? Can we stop using it?

It depends whom you ask.

[crosscountry]

thank you. If a mod wants to change the title, I might be okay with that, and they may do so.

[kleindoofy]

I always wonder about affect and effect.
First we have to analyze the words.

the "-fect" part is from Latin facere, "to do," "to work on."

The "af-" and "ef-" are the Latin "ad-" and "ex-" prefixes which change to "af-" and "ef-" by consonantal assimilation.

The main difference between the two words is that "ad-" means "to [the person involved]" and "ex-" means "away from [the person involved]."

So, when you do something, you have an effect on others, but you are affected by them.

"I washed the car, but there was no effect."

"The author's life had a great effect on his writing. His book really affected me, to the effect that I bought it for everybody for Christmas."

[sarongsong]

In their most common uses, "affect" is a verb, while "effect" is a noun.Also:
...The verb effect goes beyond mere influence; it refers to actual achievement of a final result..."The new administration hopes to effect a peace settlement."
merriam-webster.com (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/EFFECTED)

[01101001]

First, you take some oleander. Then, you make tea out of it.

Don't sample it.

Wikipedia: Nerium oleander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerium_oleander)


Oleander [...] is an evergreen shrub or small tree in the dogbane family Apocynaceae and is one of the most poisonous plants known.

[danscope]

I think Gillianren has it correctly.
I surmise that "may" is strictly permission in nature.
"Might" refers to one's ability, one's power to accomplish coupled with desire.
"He might do it." He has the power, and if he feels like it he shall do it.
Might also refers to capability. A mighty wind, so mighty that it will lay low the
mountains of the earth. :)

[sarongsong]

Don't sample it...Oh, somehow I don't think "sampling" was quite what TT had in mind... :whistle:

[dhd40]

First we have to analyze the words.

the "-fect" part is from Latin facere, "to do," "to work on."

The "af-" and "ef-" are the Latin "ad-" and "ex-" prefixes which change to "af-" and "ef-" by consonantal assimilation.

The main difference between the two words is that "ad-" means "to [the person involved]" and "ex-" means "away from [the person involved]."

So, when you do something, you have an effect on others, but you are affected by them.

"I washed the car, but there was no effect."

"The author's life had a great effect on his writing. His book really affected me, to the effect that I bought it for everybody for Christmas."

:clap: Great explanation! I do hope to see more of this kind here

[clop]

:clap: Great explanation! I do hope to see more of this kind here

This would be basic knowledge in British English. As also for insure/ensure, jealous/envious, less/fewer etc. I did not realise that GR was such a giant of grammar. GR what are your qualifications in this area?

clop

[Strange]

As also for insure/ensure

This one always bugs me because the meanings are completely different. They are even pronounced differently (unlike, say, principal/principle or compliment/complement).

[Jens]

This would be basic knowledge in British English. As also for insure/ensure, jealous/envious, less/fewer etc. I did not realise that GR was such a giant of grammar. GR what are your qualifications in this area?

I can assure you that there are many British people who have problems with these issues, just as there are Americans and Australians. Actually, I used to have an Australian friend who was teaching English in Japan, and I once saw him write "grammer." They may not be difficult for you, but not everybody finds it to be basic knowledge.

[Argos]

Great idea for a startup: askgillian.com, for the gammatically challenged.

[dhd40]

This one always bugs me because the meanings are completely different.

Amazing!
My English-German dictionary tells me:
insure = sicherstellen
ensure = sicherstellen

Well, maybe, I should learn to read dictionaries :think:

[crosscountry]

Good use of "effect" as a noun.:lol:

(When I first learned the distinction, I was annoyed that the "e" word wasn't a verb.)

ah, but it can be. It just means something different.

verb [ trans. ] (often be effected)
cause (something) to happen; bring about : nature always effected a cure | budget cuts that were quietly effected over four

[Paul Beardsley]

In psychology, "affect" is a noun.

BTW although Gillian is the best-known (and possibly best) grammarian on BAUT, she's not the only one. I teach grammar for a living, having gained a Trinity Cert TESOL (Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) in the summer last year.

[Donnie B.]

And some of us had English teachers for mothers. ;)

[dhd40]

This would be basic knowledge in British English

clop

If that is basic knowledge in British English then I wonder why British, American, Australian, .... people very often mix up its and it´s. You can see it here on BAUT, in British newspapers, in English books, in TV subtitles (of course) ....

[Tucson_Tim]

Oh, somehow I don't think "sampling" was quite what TT had in mind... :whistle:

;)

[Fazor]

Here's one from a thread I posted in just moments ago! (Hot off the presses!):

When did the phrase become "Ice Cream"? I typed it, but upon reviewing had one of those "brain fart" moments where I just couldn't visualize the words, and thought, "Heck, that has to be "Iced Cream", because that's what it is. But no, upon investigation, there is no 'd'. Is it something that was dropped over time, or was it always just called "Ice cream"?

[Nick Theodorakis]

Here's one from a thread I posted in just moments ago! (Hot off the presses!):

When did the phrase become "Ice Cream"? I typed it, but upon reviewing had one of those "brain fart" moments where I just couldn't visualize the words, and thought, "Heck, that has to be "Iced Cream", because that's what it is. But no, upon investigation, there is no 'd'. Is it something that was dropped over time, or was it always just called "Ice cream"?

According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_cream#History) (yeah, yeah, I know, but they do provide references to the OED and others) it seems to have been called "ice cream" as soon s there were print references to it.:



The earliest reference to ice cream given by the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1744, reprinted in a magazine in 1877. 1744 in Pennsylvania Mag. Hist. & Biogr. (1877) I. 126 Among the rarities..was some fine ice cream, which, with the strawberries and milk, eat most deliciously.[13]

The 1751 edition of The Art of Cookery made Plain and Easy by Hannah Glasse features a recipe for ice cream. OED gives her recipe: H. GLASSE Art of Cookery (ed. 4) 333 (heading) To make Ice Cream..set it [sc. the cream] into the larger Bason. Fill it with Ice, and a Handful of Salt.[13]



Nick

[Fazor]

That's what it seemed like when I Googled the terms (My personal favorite lazy-research method); but it just seemed odd to me.

[kleindoofy]

... When did the phrase become "Ice Cream"? ... Is it something that was dropped over time, or was it always just called "Ice cream"?
As with some other languages, English has a number of words, like "Ice Cream," which are not constructed with grammatical syntax, rather with the blunt juxtaposition of the basic word roots. In most cases, the words explain each other.

Ice cream = "ice (made of) cream" or "like ice, but cream"

Other examples are "boyfriend"/"girlfriend," "policeman," etc.

[Fazor]

Regardless, I'm going to start calling it "Iced cream". If people around here can get away with calling "chili" "Chili soup", I can add a 'd' to Iced!

[SeanF]

I surmise that "may" is strictly permission in nature.
To quote Billy Joel, "You may be wrong, but you may be right." :)

It seems to me that "may" is sometimes permission and sometimes ability, whereas "might" is pretty much always ability.

But I might be wrong. :)

[Fazor]

Heh, I've recently taken to the "Can I?" "May I?" game with Tara. She always asks for things using "Can I have..." or "Can you hand me..." etc., to which I reply, "Yes [you/I] can.", forcing her to rephrase it as "May I" or "May you".

Not because I particularly care. More so because for me to play the grammar game with someone is entertainingly (to me only) ironic, and also because annoying Tara is entertaining (again, to me only ;)).

ETA: Oh, and I should probably note that I always ask for things using "can" rather than "may". :lol:

[HenrikOlsen]

Amazing!
My English-German dictionary tells me:
insure = sicherstellen
ensure = sicherstellen

Well, maybe, I should learn to read dictionaries :think:
Ensure is to make sure.

Insure is more related to versicherung, it's a quite different way to make things safe.

[Fazor]

"Before the winter weather hits, it's always a good idea to ensure that your insurance is up to date!"

(A-hem, and if your's isn't and you live in Ohio, it's always good to ensure that Fazor keeps his job by insuring through him!)

[DyerWolf]

When are you asposed to use ain't vs isn't? Will you orientate me on the proper usage so I don't sound silly when I conversate with my friend?

[clop]

Ain't and isn't have the same meaning but nowadays ain't is considered coarse and, er, isn't isn't, isn't it?

There is always confusion regarding the use of its and it's, even though as a contraction of it is it's a very basic thing to learn. People sometimes make the mistake of using it's to denote something belonging to an animal, i.e. it's bone, in the same way you might say Simon's arm, but as animals are not considered to be proper nouns the apostrophe should not be used.

clop

[Fazor]

There is always confusion regarding the use of its and it's, even though as a contraction of it is it's a very basic thing to learn. People sometimes make the mistake of using it's to denote something belonging to an animal, i.e. it's bone, in the same way you might say Simon's arm, but as animals are not considered to be proper nouns the apostrophe should not be used.

clop

I wonder how many people are like myself though. I know the difference between "it's" and "its", but I still make the error all the time due to typing too fast combined with poor proof reading.

I was going to wager that a high percentage of people are like that as well, but then I thought about some of the people I've worked with in the past. Grammar doesn't really seem to be something that a lot of people have a good grasp on.

I've read too many incident reports that sound like, "A man not showed his ID when I went to stop him he won't turn around an answer me. I call a code 30 an then I tell him to stop. He still kept not stopping." etc. etc.

Blah. At least it makes me really appreciate the gooder (;)) education I got though my local schools. I guess I'm just lucky enough to be able to at least learn a little, even if I did my best not to.

[clop]

Actually, I do have a sensible question for our Gillianren.

Is there a technical name for terms like "safe haven" and "free gift", where the adjective adds nothing to the noun? (All havens are safe and all gifts are free.) Kind of like the opposite of an oxymoron. Why do we use these terms anyway? There's heaps of them!

clop

[HenrikOlsen]

pleonasm (http://www.onelook.com/?w=pleonasm&ls=a)
"redundancy in words," 1586, from L.L. pleonasmus, from Gk. pleonasmos, from pleonasein "to be more than enough," from pleon "more," comp. of polys "much," from PIE *ple- (see poly-).


Or, as I once heard someone state: "That was a completely unneccesary pleonasm."

[clop]

I wonder how many people are like myself though.

You mean me. :)

Myself is a reflexive pronoun and as such should only be used where it follows I as the subject of a reflexive verb, as in "I dressed myself." Indeed, the usage notes in my big modern dictionary state that the mistake of using myself for me and yourself for you is usually made in an attempt to sound formal or sophisticated.

Having said that, it does seem to be catching on a bit, even though it grates on the ears of those of us who learned English before its use became fashionable. I think it's going to become a standard part of English at some point, and it'll hold the same usage as "tu" and "vous" in French, "du" and sie" in German, "quiero" and "quieres" in Spanish etc.

clop

[Gillianren]

I surmise that "may" is strictly permission in nature.

Incorrect, as has been alluded to. I may give a longer explanation, but then again, I may not. I might go into such detail that even other grammarians have no interest in it.


Oh, somehow I don't think "sampling" was quite what TT had in mind... :whistle:

Oh, and believe me, I knew that. I even have a true crime novel around here somewhere wherein oleander is the murder weapon.


:clap: Great explanation! I do hope to see more of this kind here

As I said, I could have given it, and if it's what people want, I--or others!--can and will in the future.


This would be basic knowledge in British English. As also for insure/ensure, jealous/envious, less/fewer etc.

It is my experience that certain lines of ignorance tend to spread across international borders. For every British person who gets less/fewer right, there is at least one to get it wrong. Really.


I did not realise that GR was such a giant of grammar. GR what are your qualifications in this area?

It all started when I was very young and disreputable. Some combination of mental factors meant that, without constant intellectual stimulation, I would lose all interest in my classes and live up to my potential even less. When I was in second grade, this meant that I spent a lot of the time my classmates were spending on reading lessons (I was already at something approaching a high school level and therefore didn't need the lessons) doing these exercises the school had ordered for unknown reasons long ago and didn't use. One of them was etymology. This got me deeply interested in language as a construct. I also remembered everything my second-grade teacher taught us about grammar, picking up more as I went along. My studies have largely been amateur, though I did a brief stint at copy editing in college, but I'd willingly pit my knowledge against any professional you'd care to name. Especially given that William Safire, who could have taken me out, died this summer and therefore cannot compete.


Great idea for a startup: askgillian.com, for the gammatically challenged.

Hee.


In psychology, "affect" is a noun.

Indeed. As in "to have a flat affect," which is a very bad sign indeed under most circumstances. (Means not showing any personality.)


BTW although Gillian is the best-known (and possibly best) grammarian on BAUT, she's not the only one. I teach grammar for a living, having gained a Trinity Cert TESOL (Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) in the summer last year.

Thank you for the compliment, Paul. Certainly, were I not available, I would know that you were doing an excellent job, as would several others around here. I am definitely not the only one, and I don't think I am. I'm always delighted by the linguistic tangents we get on sometimes.


Ain't and isn't have the same meaning but nowadays ain't is considered coarse and, er, isn't isn't, isn't it?

If it was good enough for Chaucer, right?


There is always confusion regarding the use of its and it's, even though as a contraction of it is it's a very basic thing to learn. People sometimes make the mistake of using it's to denote something belonging to an animal, i.e. it's bone, in the same way you might say Simon's arm, but as animals are not considered to be proper nouns the apostrophe should not be used.

Close but wrong. "Animal" isn't a proper noun, either; it's a common noun. However, you would say "the animal's bone." The issue is that "it" is not a noun at all. It's a pronoun. Pronouns don't take apostrophes to form possessives. No one with any education on the subject would use "your's" to denote something belonging to you, right?

ETA--redundancy is valid, too, and possibly easier to remember than pleonasm.

[HenrikOlsen]

ETA--redundancy is valid, too, and possibly easier to remember than pleonasm.
But isn't there a tendency to see redundancy as less negative that a pleonasm? Or is that distinction one I imported from the technical fields where redundancy is intended duplication for better fault tolerance, rather than excesses that can safely be removed as HR departments seem to think.

[clop]

If it was good enough for Chaucer, right?

Close but wrong. "Animal" isn't a proper noun, either; it's a common noun. However, you would say "the animal's bone." The issue is that "it" is not a noun at all. It's a pronoun. Pronouns don't take apostrophes to form possessives. No one with any education on the subject would use "your's" to denote something belonging to you, right?

ETA--redundancy is valid, too, and possibly easier to remember than pleonasm.

Chaucer lived a long time ago. :)

And thank you for the other explanations. Very interesting Gillianren! :)

clop

[HenrikOlsen]

I surmise that "may" is strictly permission in nature.
Incorrect, as has been alluded to. I may give a longer explanation, but then again, I may not. I might go into such detail that even other grammarians have no interest in it.
There are at least one case (Internet standards, so-called RFC's) where it is used as permissive, but there it's recognized that it's not quite standard use and always written MAY.


In this document, the words that are used to define the significance of each particular requirement are capitalized.
These words are:
* "MUST"
This word or the adjective "REQUIRED" means that the item is an absolute requirement of the specification.
* "SHOULD"
This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore this item, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
* "MAY"
This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this item is truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a particular marketplace requires it or because it enhances the product, for example; another vendor may omit the same item.

I guess that use may have filtered to other fields.

[Gillianren]

But isn't there a tendency to see redundancy as less negative that a pleonasm? Or is that distinction one I imported from the technical fields where redundancy is intended duplication for better fault tolerance, rather than excesses that can safely be removed as HR departments seem to think.

According to my information, a redundancy need not be intentional. I don't think people offering "free gifts" are really thinking it through, but it is still redundant. Ditto "safe haven" and any number of others. A brief glance at Wikipedia, however, indicates that "pleonasm" isn't necessarily negative, either. The point is more that it's an identifier. "Oxymoron" isn't any more or less negative.

[kleindoofy]

Amazing!
My English-German dictionary tells me:
insure = sicherstellen
ensure = sicherstellen

Well, maybe, I should learn to read dictionaries :think:
No, it's time to buy a new dictionary: both are wrong.

"Sicherstellen" means to "secure" as in "er hat die Beweise sichergestellt" ("he secured the evidence").


Ensure is to make sure.

Insure is more related to versicherung, it's a quite different way to make things safe.
Yes, the noun "Versicherung" means "insurance" as in "life insurance" etc.

The verb has two meanings:

1. with dativ it's ensure as in "ich kann dir versichern, daß ich rechtzeitig dort sein werde" ("I can ensure you that I'll be there on time").

2. with the accusative it's insure as in "to sell someone insurance" ("ich kann dich gegen Einbruch, Diebstahl und Feuer versichern" - "I can insure you against burglary, theft, and fire").

I wonder if the present deficiency of cases in English might be partly responsible for some of the suspicious synonyms.

[kleindoofy]

... Ditto "safe haven" ...
That's not really a pleonasm.

"After riding the storm, having lost the mast, the tender, and half of the crew, we finally reached the safe haven."

I.e.: "we reached the haven (which was sheltered from the storm and was therefore safe) and were finally safe."

It's more of an explanation than a redundancy.

"He broke the dangerously fragile crystal glass bottle into tiny sharp splinters of razor like glass fragments."

Now *that's* pleonastic. ;)

[HenrikOlsen]

haven
noun
1 a place of safety or refuge.
2 a harbour or small port.


O.E. hæfen, from O.N. hofn, from P.Gmc. *khafnaz (cf. M.L.G. havene, Ger. Hafen), perhaps from PIE *kap- "to seize, hold contain" (see have), but cf. also O.N. haf, O.E. hæf "sea." Figurative sense of "refuge," now practically the only sense, is early 13c.
It is a pleonasm when not referring to a harbor.

[SolusLupus]

Wir lernen auch deutsch Grammatik?

[Nick Theodorakis]

The irony of the term "free gift" is that it's only used when it's not actually free, as in some sort of item that is offered by a vendor only when one buys something else.

Nick

[clop]

There's heaps of them!

Added bonus, over-exaggerate, end result, future plans, unconfirmed rumour, past history, potential hazard, completely surrounded, false pretence, and etc. (!!!)

clop

[kleindoofy]

Haven implies safety, so it is a pleonasm.

I think you may be confusing it with harbor.
Haven = safety is a secondary meaning in English.

See names like "New Haven" or other languages (German "Hafen", Dutch "haven").

In the phrase "safe haven," haven has kept its primary, i.e. original meaning of "harbor."

It's like the phrase "time and tide wait for no man."

Unbeknownst to most English monoglots, this is a play on words. In many languages "tide" (tijd, Tide, Zeit) means "time" (and in part also the "ocean tide," with which it is certainly etymologically related). So the phrase actually means "time and time wait for no man" which is a poetic dualism.

[edit: posted while Henrik was editing his post above.]

[Strange]

Ain't and isn't have the same meaning but nowadays ain't is considered coarse and, er, isn't isn't, isn't it?

I prefer "informal" to coarse. I still occasionally use "ain't" in speech but I would never use it in writing - except for humorous effect - probably not even in informal writing.

BTW Although "ain't" sounds like it is derived from "are not" (and I have no idea if that is the case or not) it can be used with both singular and plural nouns (in my dialect of English, anyway); e.g. "he/she/it/they/we ain't sober".

[geonuc]

As an aside, I've recently been listening to A Way With Words, a podcast. Today I learned what the phrase "tail over the dashboard" means and where it comes from.

[SeanF]

There's heaps of them!

Added bonus, over-exaggerate, end result, future plans, unconfirmed rumour, past history, potential hazard, completely surrounded, false pretence, and etc. (!!!)

clop
"Over-exaggerate" is not a pleonasm, unless we assume that exaggeration is never acceptable. When you take your exaggeration beyond reason, you are over-exaggerating.

Neither is "end result," since a course of action can have successive consequences. Each of them is a result, but only the final one is the end result.

I'd question "potential hazard," as well, since it may not be known whether the particular condition is hazardous or not.

[SolusLupus]

"Completely surrounded" -- I didn't know surrounded necessarily meant completely.

[clop]

100% certain.

Heh heh.

[kleindoofy]

Pleonasim is not the same as tautology.

A tautology repeats the meaning of a word or at least part of it, e.g "wet water," "totally exact," whereas a pleonasm overly describes something using similar terms, e.g. "he yelled at them screaming loudly."

[DyerWolf]

Ain't and isn't have the same meaning but nowadays ain't is considered coarse and, er, isn't isn't, isn't it?

...

clop

Close. There really is a difference between the proper use of the two. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ain't) For instance, saying

"I isn't going to school today" is clearly gramattically incorrect.

However,

"I ain't going to school today" is proper.

Thus, the word ain't has a much broader application.

Hence: isn't isn't ain't but ain't is isn't.

[danscope]

When you open your mouth, you wear the tattoo of your education and upbringing. No question. If you persist in using "Ain't" , you stubbornly declare that you don't care about grammar, and by indication, make up your own rules about......what else. Your educational grounding is suspect.
It cannot be otherwise.

[SolusLupus]

When you open your mouth, you wear the tattoo of your education and upbringing. No question. If you persist in using "Ain't" , you stubbornly declare that you don't care about grammar, and by indication, make up your own rules about......what else. Your educational grounding is suspect.
It cannot be otherwise.

So, using correct grammar shows you don't care about grammar. Gotcha. Glad your position makes complete sense.

[Tinaa]

I say ain't sometimes - more in colloquial speech. A lot of southern sayings use ain't.
I wouldn't say I'm uneducated, just very in touch with my redneck roots. And I had an excellent upbringing. You know that cotillion stuff...dance cards, formal dresses, the Southern Belle crap my mother thought would be good for me. Never did take though. It did teach me that you can't judge a book by its cover...or its pretty talking.

[SolusLupus]

Somehow this all reminds me of Firefly.

"So I came here, learned to say ain't..."

[Donnie B.]

As I understand it, "ain't" was considered grammatical among the educated classes not very long ago -- but only as a contraction for "am not". Thus "I ain't going to school" would be correct, but "He ain't who we thought he was" would not.

The very proper Lord Peter Wimsey used "ain't" occasionally, and not just when he was hobnobbing with the hoi polloi. Those novels were written in the 1920s and 1930s, and both the character and the author were most careful in their use of language. Dorothy Sayers was no slacker, grammar-wise.

[Gillianren]

As I understand it, "ain't" was considered grammatical among the educated classes not very long ago -- but only as a contraction for "am not". Thus "I ain't going to school" would be correct, but "He ain't who we thought he was" would not.

It's a shame the word is considered improper, really, given that there is no other contraction for "am not."


The very proper Lord Peter Wimsey used "ain't" occasionally, and not just when he was hobnobbing with the hoi polloi. Those novels were written in the 1920s and 1930s, and both the character and the author were most careful in their use of language. Dorothy Sayers was no slacker, grammar-wise.

Well, but Peter did have an image to uphold as a slightly dotty upper-class twit. On the other hand, he'd taken a First in history at Balliol, which presumably indicates at least a little education in grammar as well!

[kleindoofy]

... there is no other contraction for "am not."
...
Unless one considers "isn't" as an acceptable substitute.

Yes, one occasionally hears that (shudder).

I doubt Lord Peter's brother St. John would have used "ain't." Even if he had really existed.

(Isn't it sad to be speculating about what fictitious characters may or may not have done outside of their literary creation? Oh life, wherest art thou?)

[clop]

It's a shame the word is considered improper, really, given that there is no other contraction for "am not."

Actually, we lucky people of Yorkshire-upbringing do have a local contraction for "am not". I don't know how it's spelled but it sounds like "I art". As usual in Yorkshire you don't pronounce the t. We use an "epiglottal stop" instead.

So "I am not going" comes out something like "I art goin" without the t.

clop :)

[Gillianren]

I doubt Lord Peter's brother St. John would have used "ain't." Even if he had really existed.

Tsk! Lord Peter's brother was Gerald, a big, beefy chap intimidated by his brother's intelligence. Gerald's son was St. George, who was almost as big a twit as Peter sometimes pretended to be. Both of them are shown in the books to use "ain't." St. George probably in Gaudy Night, the one where he's the most prominent, and Gerald probably in Clouds of Witness, wherein he is a murder suspect.


(Isn't it sad to be speculating about what fictitious characters may or may not have done outside of their literary creation? Oh life, wherest art thou?)

It's a grand old literary tradition.

[kleindoofy]

Tsk! Lord Peter's brother was Gerald ...
Oops. :silenced:

Sorry, that's what memory will do to you. The last Lord Peter Wimsey book I read was more than twenty years ago.

Now that you say it, yes, Gerald and Viscount St. George.

So, which literary character has a brother named St. John?

[danscope]

So, using correct grammar shows you don't care about grammar. Gotcha. Glad your position makes complete sense.

Using ' ain't ' just shows who you are. Sorry charlie, it's wrong.
Street lingo is street lingo. Once a street person, always a street person.
Of course, people won't tell you that to your face at the interview.
Just a curt " thank you " .
It's your voice.

[kleindoofy]

... Once a street person, always a street person. ...
May I recommend Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw, in the musical version also known as My Fair Lady?

Eliza might disagree with you. ;)

[Gillianren]

Using ' ain't ' just shows who you are. Sorry charlie, it's wrong.
Street lingo is street lingo. Once a street person, always a street person.
Of course, people won't tell you that to your face at the interview.
Just a curt " thank you " .
It's your voice.

Can I suggest that, before you're so snide about people who use "ain't"--which, no, you shouldn't use in formal language but which is not completely forbidden in any other sense--you might want to work a little bit more on your own writing and formatting? "Charlie" should be capitalized, and you get to pick single or double quotation marks depending on which dialect you're using. Putting the two in the same paragraph--and I use the term loosely, given your erratic spacing--is wrong. As is putting spaces between whichever you use and the word.

[SolusLupus]

Using ' ain't ' just shows who you are. Sorry charlie, it's wrong.
Street lingo is street lingo. Once a street person, always a street person.
Of course, people won't tell you that to your face at the interview.
Just a curt " thank you " .
It's your voice.

<curt> Thank you. </curt>

[Jens]

Using ' ain't ' just shows who you are. Sorry charlie, it's wrong.


It absolutely is not wrong. It is what is called "non-standard." Just like the "art" that is used in Yorkshire (it sounds pretty clearly like a variant of "aren't").

Ain't is a perfectly fine word in some dialects, in the same way that "idrem" is correct in Jamaica and "y'all" is fine in Texas. It is generally not considered proper in the acrolect of English.

[Jens]

It's a shame the word is considered improper, really, given that there is no other contraction for "am not."


I once had a student who inadvertently used "am't". It makes sense, though it's hard to pronounce. That's probably why it never made it as a word.

[Jens]

Ensure is to make sure.

Insure is more related to versicherung, it's a quite different way to make things safe.

What's complicated about "ensure" and "insure" is that they are actually variants of the same word. They originally meant the same thing but the word "insure" has come to be used in a special sense. But they are the same concept, "to make sure."

[Jens]

There is always confusion regarding the use of its and it's, even though as a contraction of it is it's a very basic thing to learn. People sometimes make the mistake of using it's to denote something belonging to an animal, i.e. it's bone, in the same way you might say Simon's arm, but as animals are not considered to be proper nouns the apostrophe should not be used.


You're actually saying something important, but you have it mixed up. It has nothing to do with animals or proper nouns. Because we say "Simon's arm" and we also say "the man's arm." So what you have rightly perceived is that it is normal to put an apostrophe s after a noun to make a possessive. So people might naturally assume that "the arm belonging to it" should be "it's arm." It makes sense, but it's still wrong, because "its" is actually a possessive pronoun like "his" (not he's) and "her" (not she's).

[clop]

You're actually saying something important, but you have it mixed up. It has nothing to do with animals or proper nouns. Because we say "Simon's arm" and we also say "the man's arm." So what you have rightly perceived is that it is normal to put an apostrophe s after a noun to make a possessive. So people might naturally assume that "the arm belonging to it" should be "it's arm." It makes sense, but it's still wrong, because "its" is actually a possessive pronoun like "his" (not he's) and "her" (not she's).

So would it be the dogs bone or the dog's bone? I thought that only proper nouns could possess things?

clop

[HenrikOlsen]

"Dog's bone" is the correct version.
"Dogs" is the plural of dog.
Common nouns can possess things too, it's pronouns that don't get possessive "'s".

[Jens]

I thought that only proper nouns could possess things?


I really can't understand why you would have heard that. At least in a grammatical sense, there is no such rule. Surely you must have heard things like "the car's wheel" or "the man's wife." Neither of those are proper nouns.

[Strange]

"I isn't going to school today" is clearly gramattically incorrect.

I bet there are dialects where that is grammatically correct.

[Strange]

When you open your mouth, you wear the tattoo of your education and upbringing. No question. If you persist in using "Ain't" , you stubbornly declare that you don't care about grammar, and by indication, make up your own rules about......what else. Your educational grounding is suspect.
It cannot be otherwise.

:mad:

Using words like ain't is not "wrong" and certainly isn't an example of "making up your own rules". It has, as has been noted, a very long history. There are plenty of words and grammatical structures used in British English that are not part of your dialect. Does that mean they are "wrong" as well?

[dhd40]

If you persist in using "Ain't" , you stubbornly declare that you don't care about grammar, and by indication, make up your own rules about......what else. Your educational grounding is suspect.


Methinks thou dost protest too much

[dhd40]

"Dog's bone" is the correct version.
.

No, the correct version is "dogs´ bone" = two dogs, one bone :)

[dhd40]

what about "it´s me" ?

Who´s calling? Is it ..

it´s I ? (brrrrrrr) or
me is ? (brrrrrrrrrrrr) or
I am (boring)

[Hlafordlaes]

Using ' ain't ' just shows who you are. Sorry charlie, it's wrong.
Street lingo is street lingo. Once a street person, always a street person.
Of course, people won't tell you that to your face at the interview.
Just a curt " thank you " .
It's your voice.

You may wish to google sociolinguistics. There are differing times and settings for language styles. The interview faux pas you cite, if one is mindful... just ain't gonna happen.

So-called "Black English" in the US is English with the "written brakes" off, and exhibits a continuation of many of the changes that took place when English was a low-status unofficial language under the Normans in England.

Street talk in most languages is an indication of what standard speech will look like a century or so into the future.

[Messier Tidy Upper]

Dear Desperate in Tucson,
... Sometimes, there are then posts at five in the morning my time demanding to know why I haven't answered yet! ...

Ah yes the (very) different time zone / nation issue. I'm familiar with the occassional inconvenience that causes too. :lol:

[Gillianren]

So would it be the dogs bone or the dog's bone? I thought that only proper nouns could possess things?

I, too, am very curious as to why you believe that. It doesn't resemble any grammatical rule I've ever heard except the above mentioned "actual nouns vs. pronouns."


Methinks thou dost protest too much

Oh, goodie. I get to explain this again, too.

First, you're misquoting. Even given the paraphrase to change person, it's "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Even leaving that aside, though, what the Queen in Hamlet meant is that what the Player Queen was swearing to with such fervency made it likely that she didn't really mean what she said she meant. In this instance, "protest" doesn't mean the modern version. It means "swear" or "vow."


what about "it´s me" ?

Who´s calling? Is it ..

it´s I ? (brrrrrrr) or
me is ? (brrrrrrrrrrrr) or
I am (boring)

"It's me" falls under the "idiom" exception. It should be "It is I." However, except in very formal situations, "it's me" is perfectly fine.

[Strange]

"It's me" falls under the "idiom" exception. It should be "It is I." However, except in very formal situations, "it's me" is perfectly fine.

I'm not sure I agree with that. The "I" in the sentence is the object and so should be "me", surely? I guess the logic for saying it should be "I" would be based on a purely textual substitution. To me it sounds more like an example of hypercorrection.

However, in Italian it is "sono io" which translates as "[I] is I" (or, less plausibly, "[they] are I"). which perhaps proves that the only logic in grammar is what people actually say.

[Otherworldly]

l'état, c'est moi

[dhd40]

Oh, goodie. I get to explain this again, too.

First, you're misquoting. Even given the paraphrase to change person, it's "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
It was not my intention to quote Gertrude ! :)



It should be "It is I."
As I said: brrrrrrr

[SeanF]

I'm not sure I agree with that. The "I" in the sentence is the object and so should be "me", surely? I guess the logic for saying it should be "I" would be based on a purely textual substitution. To me it sounds more like an example of hypercorrection.
I'm not sure of the history behind it, but the verb "to be" is an exception in English in that it takes the nominative case as its object.

"It is I."

"This is he."

etc.

[dhd40]

l'état, c'est moi

c´est moi? Non, should be "suis je"

[AndreasJ]

I'm not sure of the history behind it, but the verb "to be" is an exception in English in that it takes the nominative case as its object.

No it isn't - it doesn't take an object at all. The "I" or "me" in "it is I/me" is a predicative.

Whether this form of predicative uses a subject or object form varies between languages. In modern English one would on typological grounds expect "me" to be used* but the older usage of "I" persists in formal speech, as we all know.

[AndreasJ]

c´est moi? Non, should be "suis je"

I don't know French, but the famous utterance by Louis XIV certainly has "c'est moi".

[SolusLupus]

French now?

Can we stick with the real languages, please? ;)

[HenrikOlsen]

Well, considering that English is French with German grammar plus a smattering of pollution from almost every other language, dead or alive, filtered through centuries of erroneous transmission, you can't really call French less real:D

[SolusLupus]

Ah, but English has won the war, no? I thought winning in the long war of cultures denoted moral, religious, and linguistic superiority. ;)

Let's, uh, just forget about Spanish. And Mandarin.

[kleindoofy]

... Can we stick with the real languages, please? ;)
Oh, so you want this thread to conducted in Latin.

Ok.

Tibi est autem incipendum. ;)

Btw, we discussed the whole "it's me" matter a few weeks ago. Do we have to start that up again?

[Gillianren]

It was not my intention to quote Gertrude ! :)

That's as may be, but it's where the phrase originates.


As I said: brrrrrrr

Care to explain?


Well, considering that English is French with German grammar plus a smattering of pollution from almost every other language, dead or alive, filtered through centuries of erroneous transmission, you can't really call French less real:D

English is assuredly not French with German grammar. It is a vague, confused amalgam of both with grammar from both. Very large amounts of basic English is of Germanic, not Latin, roots. And, of course, pollution (though I'm not sure I'd call it that exactly) from almost every other language, dead or alive, filtered through centuries of erroneous transmission.

[danscope]

That sounds like an honest description to me. Makes it all the more interesting. Hmmmm...

[Jeff Root]

Why is "ain't" labeled "nonstandard"?

I think my 12th-grade English teacher might have talked about this, but my
brain ain't pulling it up out of that deep, dark well well well of memory.

* * * *

Why is it okay to say "I'm home!" but not "I'm office!" or "I'm school!" ?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[SolusLupus]

Oh, so you want this thread to conducted in Latin.

Ok.

Tibi est autem incipendum. ;)

aetus/sexus/locus?

[clop]

Do we all know the difference between jealousy and envy?

[dhd40]

That's as may be, but it's where the phrase originates.
true



Care to explain?

brrrrr.. means it sounds terrrrible in my ears (maybe, that´s grrrrr.. in English)

[AndreasJ]

aetus/sexus/locus?

aetas

[mahesh]

Great idea for a startup: askgillian.com, for the gammatically challenged.

yeah and it'll halp you corect spallings two...
(wink! how does one do a winksmiley?)

[mahesh]

..."The author's life had a great effect on his writing. His book really affected me, to the effect that I bought it for everybody for Christmas."

Dear kleindoofy...

...reminds me of JDSalinger's...you know the one...with Phoebe and her brother...

:D

edit:
i meant to thank you for your nice explanation. thank you.

[kleindoofy]

aetus/sexus/locus?
LI/m/Germania :lol:

[kleindoofy]

... Why is it okay to say "I'm home!" but not "I'm office!" or "I'm school!" ? ...
Because "home" is a special "location" word which used to have quasi local adverb endings indicating direction or location.

See Latin "domum" "at home."

[Jeff Root]

Are there other words like "home" in this regard?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[SolusLupus]

LI/m/Germania :lol:

S 2 Calidus?!!!

(In case there's any wonder, I'm quoting this: http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/44.html)

[Gillianren]

brrrrr.. means it sounds terrrrible in my ears (maybe, that´s grrrrr.. in English)

Yes, I got that. It was more a question of why.

[dhd40]

Yes, I got that. It was more a question of why.

Sorry, I really can´t explain why. Sort of gut feeling for some unknown reason

[sarongsong]

....Very large amounts of basic English is of Germanic, not Latin, roots...Reference?
...About 80 percent of the entries in any English dictionary are borrowed, mainly from Latin. Over 60 percent of all English words have Greek or Latin roots. In the vocabulary of the sciences and technology, the figure rises to over 90 percent...
dictionary2.classic.reference.com (http://dictionary2.classic.reference.com/help/faq/language/t16.html)

[AndreasJ]

Most words in a dictionary are not basic. The basic words are things like articles, the commonest verbs, etc, that make up the majority of words in a normal text, but a tiny fraction of the entries in a dictionary.

[grant hutchison]

Reference?You can check for yourself: here (http://ogden.basic-english.org/words.html) are the 850 words in Charles Ogden's original Basic English.

Grant Hutchison

[sarongsong]

...and here (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Merriam-Websters-Dictionary-of-Basic-English/Merriam-Webster/e/9780877797319/?itm=3&usri=websters+basic+english+dictionary) are 32,000 entries from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Basic English...

[grant hutchison]

...and here (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Merriam-Websters-Dictionary-of-Basic-English/Merriam-Webster/e/9780877797319/?itm=3&usri=websters+basic+english+dictionary) are 32,000 entries from Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Basic English...A pretty baroque interpretation of the phrase "basic English", it must be said.
But no doubt Gillianren will tell us what size of vocabulary she meant when she wrote "basic English".

Grant Hutchison

[Jens]

Reference?

I can't give you a reference, though it's in some book on my shelf. What I remember reading is that, as you say, Latin-based vocabulary is very common on a dictionary-based level, if you actually go through a text and count the words, you will find that a majority of the words are still Germanic. Because words like prepositions and articles and pronouns and "be" verbs come up so
often.

For example, looking at my post, it's clear (I think, though I could be wrong) that the first five words are all Germanic, and the sixth (reference) is Latinate.

[kleindoofy]

- reference - remember* - Latin-based vocabulary - common - dictionary-based level - actually - text - count* - majority - Germanic - Because* - prepositions - articles - pronouns - verbs - example - post - Germanic - sixth (reference) - Latinate
That's my count on Latinistic words in the post, although I'm not really sure about the * words. They could be mixes.

[Gillianren]

What Gillianren meant was the words which get used every day. Words for family members, common household items of very old invention--knife, but not television--many words for nature and natural phenomena. The words necessary for daily life, not much required beyond farming. The more you know, the more your language gets Latinate. Its simplest terms, however, are Germanic.

[kleindoofy]

I agree 100% with Gillian on that.

It's the 5 buck words and on up that are Latinate, but not the basics.

Listen to a child. First language English speaking children learn the Germanic words first, except perhaps for the names of special objects.

[Jens]

That's my count on Latinistic words in the post, although I'm not really sure about the * words. They could be mixes.

I'd pretty much agree. "Because" must be a mix of "be" and "cause" as you suggested. The only one I'd disagree with is "sixth," though perhaps it's there by mistake.

And one you forgot: "very." Though verily, it's easy to not notice that one!

[neilzero]

In counting 4 through 9 sound somewhat similar, English and German. Neil

[grant hutchison]

For reference: the 100 commonest (http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/wordfrom/revisedcoed11/?view=uk), 500 commonest (http://www.world-english.org/english500.htm) and 2000 commonest (http://elc.polyu.edu.hk/CiLL/common2000words.htm) words in English drawn from various large collections of written and spoken English.
The nice folks who look after the Oxford English Corpus have also digested it according to common and rare words, here (http://www.askoxford.com/oec/mainpage/oec02/?view=uk). You can see that 75% of the corpus consists of just the 1000 commonest words.
With that in mind, a scroll through the various word-lists I link to should make Gillianren's point quite clearly.

Grant Hutchison

[dhd40]

the Oxford English Corpus have also digested it according to common and rare words, here (http://www.askoxford.com/oec/mainpage/oec02/?view=uk).

Grant Hutchison

This is a great link! Have you tried to read the rows of the table "Nouns Verbs Adjectives" ? Here we go:

1 time be good
2 person have new
5 day get long
7 man go little
9 life take other
11 part come right
12 child think big :cool:
13 eye look high
14 woman want different :o
20 government work important :evil:
21 company seem few
23 group try bad
24 problem leave same (my favourite)

Now, I´m not saying this is good Oxford English, but not too bad for pigeon English :eek:

[Gillianren]

Pidgin.

[dhd40]

Pidgin.

row no. ?? we need you :)

[Hlafordlaes]

Frequency stats for word count are skewed high for English words by functional syntax (prepositions, etc.) Offhand I believe a realistic in-use count leans a bit more toward Old French. (Still can't forgive the Normans for doing away with the poetic OE "whale way" for "ocean," however.) Words directly derived from Latin are actually few in comparison, outside scientific terminology. Legalese often resorts to redundancy so both Norman nobles and English commoners could understand (eg. "aid and abet").

For a nice time reading prose with a high Anglo Saxon word count, Tolkien's the man, like the archaic use of "moot" for meetings.

Long live Alfred The Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great)!

[publiusr]

With Safire gone and James J. Kilpatrick less active, Gillianren is all we have left of note.

Now I disagreed with Safire in the usage of the word "enormous." I think the term has been used to describe something of a large size so often as to warrant another definition besides being just a synonym of the term "heinous." There are some times improper usage just feels right--as in "Mo' Better Blues."

[Gillianren]

With Safire gone and James J. Kilpatrick less active, Gillianren is all we have left of note.

That's esteemed company!


Now I disagreed with Safire in the usage of the word "enormous." I think the term has been used to describe something of a large size so often as to warrant another definition besides being just a synonym of the term "heinous." There are some times improper usage just feels right--as in "Mo' Better Blues."

You're missing his distinction. "Enormous" does mean "very large." "Enormity" means "heinous."

[grant hutchison]

Each were both, but the current division of labour had shaken down by the end of the 19th century. Why would Safire be interested?

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

Each were both, but the current division of labour had shaken down by the end of the 19th century. Why would Safire be interested?

Because it's language.

[grant hutchison]

Because it's language.I seemed to get from publiusr post that Safire was responding to some sort of uncertainty or debate about enormousness / enormity.
It seems I'm wrong.

Grant Hutchison

[Jens]

There are some times improper usage just feels right--as in "Mo' Better Blues."

Sure are. "I can't get any satisfaction" would be darn lame title for a song!

[kleindoofy]

On the other hand, who wants to read a book with the title For Who the Bell Tolls? ;)

[Gillianren]

I seemed to get from publiusr post that Safire was responding to some sort of uncertainty or debate about enormousness / enormity.
It seems I'm wrong.

In a lot of cases, based on what I've read from his column, he was (I'm still not used to the past tense!) commenting on someone else's incorrect, at least by his standards, usage or even just speculating about why things are correct/incorrect now when they didn't used to be.

[DonM435]

Because "home" is a special "location" word which used to have quasi local adverb endings indicating direction or location.

See Latin "domum" "at home."

Didn't someone get in trouble with a centurion over that one?

[Otherworldly]

Didn't someone get in trouble with a centurion over that one?

I remember that :D

[dhd40]

Today I read an article which said "... the team has discovered ..."
But then I remember to have seen ".. the team have found ..."

Is there a rule how to handle this? Should I think of a team (or a group, etc) as one single entity (= one team, so has would be correct), or as being composed of more than one person (which would ask for have)?

[Otherworldly]

Today I read an article which said "... the team has discovered ..."
But then I remember to have seen ".. the team have found ..."

Is there a rule how to handle this? Should I think of a team (or a group, etc) as one single entity (= one team, so has would be correct), or as being composed of more than one person (which would ask for have)?

This is British vs. American.

[SeanF]

Today I read an article which said "... the team has discovered ..."
But then I remember to have seen ".. the team have found ..."

Is there a rule how to handle this? Should I think of a team (or a group, etc) as one single entity (= one team, so has would be correct), or as being composed of more than one person (which would ask for have)?
Team is a collective noun, and takes singular verbs, although using plural verbs is not uncommon and may soon be accepted as correct.

It gets interesting, though, when you refer to a team by name, since then (I think), you have to look at whether the name itself is a collective noun. So, for example, "The Florida Panthers have," but, "The Tampa Bay Lightning has."

AFAIK, anyway. :)

[Nick Theodorakis]

Speaking of sports teams, why do we say "Toronto Maple Leafs" instead of "Toronto Maple Leaves"?

Nick

[SolusLupus]

Speaking of sports teams, why do we say "Toronto Maple Leafs" instead of "Toronto Maple Leaves"?

Nick

Because sports fans tend to be "like that"?

I.E., lacking in... uhm...

Nevermind. :)

[SeanF]

Speaking of sports teams, why do we say "Toronto Maple Leafs" instead of "Toronto Maple Leaves"?

Nick
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Maple_Leafs):


The Maple Leafs say that the name was chosen in honour of the Maple Leaf Regiment from World War I. As the regiment is a proper noun, its plural is formed by adding a simple 's' creating Maple Leafs (not *Maple Leaves).

*No, I don't know what the asterisk is for, either.

[AndreasJ]

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Maple_Leafs):



*No, I don't know what the asterisk is for, either.

It's used before a hypothetical form to indicate it's not actually attested "in the wild".

[grant hutchison]

Speaking of sports teams, why do we say "Toronto Maple Leafs" instead of "Toronto Maple Leaves"?Steven Pinker discusses this example in his Words and Rules. Pinker points out that we regularize irregular verbs and nouns quite readily if they're part of compounds: the business of forming the compound seems to shake them loose from their irregular forms and trigger the default grammatical handling. Other examples he gives are lowlifes (not *lowlives) and Mickey Mouses (not *Mickey Mice).

Grant Hutchison

[dhd40]

This is British vs. American.

Which is which?

[dhd40]

Team is a collective noun, and takes singular verbs, although using plural verbs is not uncommon and may soon be accepted as correct.



Well, yes, but then funiture comes to mind. Its a collective noun as well´, isn´t it? Still, my dictionary tells me it´s plural. So should I say " the furniture has been shuffeld around by my wife" or "the furniture have been shuffeld around by my wife"

[SeanF]

Well, yes, but then funiture comes to mind. Its a collective noun as well´, isn´t it? Still, my dictionary tells me it´s plural. So should I say " the furniture has been shuffeld around by my wife" or "the furniture have been shuffeld around by my wife"
I would say "has," not "have." What kind of dictionary do you have? :)

[grant hutchison]

This is British vs. American.Which is which?Actually, British English is quite relaxed about whether one uses singular or plural with most collective nouns, the exception being collections of inanimate objects like luggage, furniture, cutlery, which are always singular.
So if you're treating the team as a unit, you can use singular ("the team is on the bus"); if you're treating them as individuals, you can use plural ("I looked at my team, and knew immediately what they were thinking"). The only rule is to maintain consistency. Don't switch between plural and singular by saying things like: "The team is on the bus and they are ready to go."

My understanding is that American English leans more towards using the singular for collective nouns wherever possible, but I may have a mistaken impression.

Grant Hutchison

[SeanF]

So if you're treating the team as a unit, you can use singular ("the team is on the bus"); if you're treating them as individuals, you can use plural ("I looked at my team, and knew immediately what they were thinking").
I think even in American English, you'd use that formulation. The alternative ("...what it was thinking") not only sounds awkward, but also implies a collective mind of some sort. So, unless your team is the Borg... :shifty:

[Gillianren]

So should I say " the furniture has been shuffeld around by my wife" or "the furniture have been shuffeld around by my wife"

Neither. It should be "shuffled."

Seriously, though, the answer is "has."

[dhd40]

Steven Pinker discusses this example in his Words and Rules.
Grant Hutchison

Great book!
I strongly recommend to read the chapter "The Horrors of the German Language" :)

And, of course, the plural of walkman is walkmans, or would you like to buy walkmen for your children? :whistle:

[AndreasJ]

It only seems to happen when the compound doesn't indicate a kind of the the second element. Walkmans aren't men, but swordsmen are.

[dhd40]

Neither. It should be "shuffled."

You haven´t seen the outcome ! :naughty:


Seriously, though, the answer is "has."

That comes as a surprise

[Nick Theodorakis]

..
My understanding is that American English leans more towards using the singular for collective nouns wherever possible, but I may have a mistaken impression.
...

That's usually true, but doesn't seem to be the case when the collective noun is a plural form, e.g., "The St. Louis Cardinals are in the National League."

Nick

[grant hutchison]

I think even in American English, you'd use that formulation. The alternative ("...what it was thinking") not only sounds awkward, but also implies a collective mind of some sort. So, unless your team is the Borg... :shifty:Yes, hence my little "wherever possible" disclaimer. :) But I've formed the impression that an American editor might prefer to recast the whole sentence, either to preserve the singular collective, or to somehow shake the plural pronoun loose from the collective (for instance: "I looked at the members of my team, and knew immediately what they were thinking").

Grant Hutchison

[dhd40]

I would say "has," not "have." What kind of dictionary do you have? :)

Cassel´s German & English Dictionary (1976)

[SeanF]

Yes, hence my little "wherever possible" disclaimer. :)
:p

The whole point of your post seemed to be to show the difference between British and American usages, which would make choosing an example which is the same in both counterproductive. :)

[SeanF]

Cassel´s German & English Dictionary (1976)
Hmm. That's not old enough for the usage to have changed, so, unless it's referring to British English and furniture commonly takes plural verbs there (Grant? :) ), it just seems to be wrong.

[dhd40]

Hmm. That's not old enough for the usage to have changed, so, unless it's referring to British English and furniture commonly takes plural verbs there (Grant? :) ), it just seems to be wrong.

I looked it up, and :doh: ... The rest is silence :silenced:

[grant hutchison]

:p

The whole point of your post seemed to be to show the difference between British and American usages, which would make choosing an example which is the same in both counterproductive. :)No, you seem to have misunderstood. The point of the post was to describe British usage, and how we're happy with either singular or plural.
The bit about American usage was an addendum. I did rather flag that by following my bold declarative statement about British English with a new para in order to make a brief and very non-committal remark about American English. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone how American English is (or should be) written.

Grant Hutchison

[SeanF]

No, you seem to have misunderstood.
Yes, I did - You responded to dhd40, who was himself responding to Otherworldly, and I conflated your post with Otherworldly's. Mea culpa. :)

[grant hutchison]

... unless it's referring to British English and furniture commonly takes plural verbs there (Grant? :) ) ...See above ...
Actually, British English is quite relaxed about whether one uses singular or plural with most collective nouns, the exception being collections of inanimate objects like luggage, furniture, cutlery, which are always singular.:lol:

Grant Hutchison

[grant hutchison]

Yes, I did - You responded to dhd40, who was himself responding to Otherworldly, and I conflated your post with Otherworldly's. Mea culpa. :)Ah, I see how that happened. :)
I felt obliged to nest a quote from Otherworldly for reference, otherwise there was scant context for my chiming in with a dissertation on collective nouns in British English.

Grant Hutchison

[Jeff Root]

My mind is apparently connected to Sean's. I had exactly the same thoughts
about the team's thoughts. Namely that a different example was needed to
contrast Brutish use against Murkin use.

I wasn't aware of the distinction between inanimate objects and whatever
the contrasting group may be. (Animate objects? :))

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[kleindoofy]

Didn't someone get in trouble with a centurion over that one?
Always look on the bright side of, err, grammar. ;)


Actually, British English is quite relaxed about whether one uses singular or plural with most collective nouns ...
Ahh yes, and once again "relaxed" becomes a synonym for being sloppy. :lol:


Cassel's German & English Dictionary (1976)
The big green one, or the little red one?

I'm afraid Cassel's isn't very good. If I recall correctly, it's full of errors.

[grant hutchison]

Ahh yes, and once again "relaxed" becomes a synonym for being sloppy. :lol:And once again "sloppy" becomes a synonym for "not the way I do it". :lol:

Grant Hutchison

[kleindoofy]

And once again "sloppy" becomes a synonym for "not the way I do it". :lol:

Grant Hutchison
Eureka! We have found the perpetuum mobile. :lol:

[Gillianren]

You haven´t seen the outcome ! :naughty:

I did see that you'd spelled the word wrong, however.

[DonM435]

That's usually true, but doesn't seem to be the case when the collective noun is a plural form, e.g., "The St. Louis Cardinals are in the National League."

Nick

Can't recall the context, but some Brooklyn Dodgers player once famously announced "The Giants is dead!"

[DonM435]

In reading Canadian newspapers, I'd note fewer definite articles with respect to teams, e.g., "In other action, New York Yankees defeated Detroit Tigers 5-3."

[Tinaa]

Why a pair a pants when it is only one unit?

[Jens]

Today I read an article which said "... the team has discovered ..."
But then I remember to have seen ".. the team have found ..."


It's actually not a question of British versus American usage. Both are correct in both languages. The way I've heard it described is like this: it depends on whether the speaker is perceiving the team as a unit or as a collection of individuals. So if a whole team was killed in a plane crash, it would be most logical to use "was." Whereas I would say that the team were wearing a mixture of summer and winter uniforms, because in that case I am looking at the team members individually.

[swampyankee]

Why a pair a pants when it is only one unit?

Because each leg goes into one pant.:shifty:

[Jens]

It's used before a hypothetical form to indicate it's not actually attested "in the wild".

The asterisk is used in linguistics to indicate an improper form. So you will often see things like:

The man ate the apple.
*The man eated the apple.

[SeanF]

Why a pair a pants when it is only one unit?
When pants were originally invented, they were two separate legs that you had to lace together when you put them on.

And before you ask, underwear comes in pairs simply because of association with pants.

:)

[Chuck]

If I put only one foot into a fire, I should really say that my pant is burning.

[swampyankee]

If I put only one foot into a fire, I should really say that my pant is burning.

You would also be allowed to scream. If this is something you seriously intend, I would suggest that you buy a nomex sock, to go with the non-inflammable pant.

And get really good medical insurance. ;)

[SeanF]

If I put only one foot into a fire, I should really say that my pant is burning.
Only if you're still wearing the kind that come in two parts and have to be laced up. :)

[Nick Theodorakis]

If I put only one foot into a fire, I should really say that my pant is burning.

Yes, because you would be lying if you said your pants were on fire.

Nick

[Jens]

It only seems to happen when the compound doesn't indicate a kind of the the second element. Walkmans aren't men, but swordsmen are.

That's right, and that's why the Maple Leafs has nothing to do with the alleged ignorance of sports fans. :) Just as a hypothetical example, I surmise that if Hughes has succeeded with his dream, we would be calling them Spruce Gooses and not Spruce Geese (because it's not a kind of goose).

[AndreasJ]

The asterisk is used in linguistics to indicate an improper form. So you will often see things like:

The man ate the apple.
*The man eated the apple.

You evil generativist! :p

Both usages occur, but improper forms are more unambiguously indicated with a double asterisk: **eated.

[dhd40]

I did see that you'd spelled the word wrong, however.
Still, you missed something:

Its a collective noun as well, isn´t it :rolleyes:

ETA: I know, I know, you´ve seen it, but you didn´t want to ....

[HenrikOlsen]

Its a collective noun as well, isn´t it :rolleyes:
Only if you're talking about multiple people who are "it" in a game of tag.

[Gillianren]

Still, you missed something:

Its a collective noun as well, isn´t it :rolleyes:

ETA: I know, I know, you´ve seen it, but you didn´t want to ....

It is a collective noun which takes a singular verb. It's just that simple.

[dhd40]

Only if you're talking about multiple people who are "it" in a game of tag.

You didn´t get it, and Gillian didn´t get it, either :):):)

[dhd40]

It is a collective noun which takes a singular verb. It's just that simple.

You didn´t get it, and HenrikOlsen didn´t get it, either :):):)

[dhd40]

You both (Gillianren, HenrikOlsen) didn´t get it :)

Its a collective noun as well, isn´t it ?

It´s a collective noun as well, isn´t it ?

[AndreasJ]

You both (Gillianren, HenrikOlsen) didn´t get it :)

Its a collective noun as well, isn´t it ?

It´s a collective noun as well, isn´t it ?

Those accents should be apostrophes.

(Now, as to what you're talking about, I have no idea.)

[Gillianren]

You both (Gillianren, HenrikOlsen) didn´t get it :)

Its a collective noun as well, isn´t it ?

It´s a collective noun as well, isn´t it ?

No.

"Its" is, as I said earlier, a pronoun and not a noun at all.

"It's" is a contraction of a noun and a verb.

Neither of those things are collective nouns.

ETA: Now, I get what you're saying. Some people's grammar is generally so poor that it's difficult to spot all the errors.

[DonM435]

Ah, I found it. Charlie Dressen, manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers stated "The Giants is dead" in 1951.

This was just shortly before their New York rivals surged to overcome a 13-game deficit to force a pennant playoff, in which they beat the Dodgers due to a miracle last-inning home run (and some now-admitted sign stealing).

So those are a great example of Famous Last Words.

[Gillianren]

Also part of a pretty good episode of M*A*S*H.

[HenrikOlsen]

You both (Gillianren, HenrikOlsen) didn´t get it :)

Its a collective noun as well, isn´t it ?

It´s a collective noun as well, isn´t it ?
http://xkcd.com/169/

[dhd40]

Those accents should be apostrophes.

Which accents?


(Now, as to what you're talking about, I have no idea.)

see post#158:



Originally Posted by SeanF
Team is a collective noun, and takes singular verbs, although using plural verbs is not uncommon and may soon be accepted as correct.


Originally Posted by DHD40
Well, yes, but then funiture comes to mind. Its a collective noun as well, isn´t it?
I´m talking about this "Its". It´s a (my= DHD40´s) mistake, because it should read "It´s" (It is a collective noun ...)

[dhd40]

http://xkcd.com/169/

I´m lost :sad:

[AndreasJ]

Which accents?
The ones in "didn´t", "isn´t", and "It´s". (Should be "didn't", "isn't" and "It's".)

[HenrikOlsen]

I´m lost :sad:
Read the second to last frame again as applying to you.

[SeanF]

Read the second to last frame again as applying to you.
I'm afraid that's a little harsh. I thought dhd40's post pointing out his own error was pretty obvious - he even bolded the error for us.

I understood it.

(Of course, I think that xkcd comic is a little harsh on its own merits, so...)

[Jens]

Yes, I think that dhd40 is berating others for not noticing an error in how "it's" was spelled in a previous post. The problem is, though it was an error, there are lots of errors in lots of posts, and people don't usually point them out all the time.

[SeanF]

Yes, I think that dhd40 is berating others for not noticing an error in how "it's" was spelled in a previous post. The problem is, though it was an error, there are lots of errors in lots of posts, and people don't usually point them out all the time.
Berating? I don't get that tone at all from dhd40's posts.

Gillianren had a little snarky fun at his expense for his misspelling of "shuffled."

He had a little snarky fun right back at her expense (and, not incidentally, his own) by correcting the other mistake he had made in the same post that she had not corrected.

That Gillianren and Henrik both misunderstood that subsequent post just added to the humor of the whole situation.

[Jens]

Berating? I don't get that tone at all from dhd40's posts.

The word wasn't well chosen, I'll admit. I was looking for a good word and couldn't come with anything better. "Taking to task" was something else that came to mind, maybe I should have gone with that. I was looking for something more than just "pointing out that. . ." But I wasn't intending to make a judgment about the tone. I really got the impression that neither Gillianren nor Henrik understood what he was talking about.

[Gillianren]

Initially, I did not; as it happens, this is because so many people get "its" and "it's" wrong that I don't always even notice anymore. Going back and looking at the original post, I also note an inexplicable accent after "well." What's more, there is no question mark at the end of the post, and there should be. I can go on and proofread all his posts, if that's what he's really looking for; I suspect he is not.

I will also point out that all I did was answer his question.

[grant hutchison]

It certainly resembles willful obscurity, choosing to write:
You both (Gillianren, HenrikOlsen) didn´t get it :)

Its a collective noun as well, isn´t it ?

It´s a collective noun as well, isn´t it ?Clarity would have been achieved by simply writing:
I spelled "it's" wrongly, too.Although I did figure out what dhd40's point was, I thought Henrik's cartoon was an apposite (albeit rather draconian) response.
<Shrug.> Is everyone now appropriately chidden and chastened? :)

Grant Hutchison

[SeanF]

"Taking to task" was something else that came to mind, maybe I should have gone with that.
"Taking to task" is even too strong. There was no criticism at all in dhd40's posts - it was good-natured ribbing.


I really got the impression that neither Gillianren nor Henrik understood what he was talking about.
Of course - so did I. That's kind of the whole point.


I can go on and proofread all his posts, if that's what he's really looking for; I suspect he is not.
Do you suspect that what he was really looking for in the first place was to have his spelling snarkily corrected? I suspect not.


I will also point out that all I did was answer his question.
Please. You said:

Neither. It should be "shuffled."

Seriously, though, the answer is "has."
If all you'd had was the second sentence, you could say that "all you did" was answer his question. With the first part there, though...

Again, just to clarify, I don't think there was anything wrong with your post. But there was nothing wrong with dhd40's response to it, either - it was in kind.


It certainly resembles willful obscurity...
That's the second post, after they already didn't get it. His first post was:

Still, you missed something:

Its a collective noun as well, isn´t it :rolleyes:

ETA: I know, I know, you´ve seen it, but you didn´t want to ....
The only clarification I might've suggested would be to put the quote in QUOTE tags - but, then, I do that everytime I quote, anyway. A lot of posters don't, though.

I certainly don't think it qualifies as "willful obscurity," though - if you want an example of that, might I suggest Henrik's post where he quoted dhd40 and then linked to the xkcd comic with no commentary of his own at all?


<Shrug.> Is everyone now appropriately chidden and chastened? :)
And then some, I think. :)

[AndreasJ]

The only clarification I might've suggested would be to put the quote in QUOTE tags - but, then, I do that everytime I quote, anyway. A lot of posters don't, though.
I suppose I'm dense, but that wouldn't have helped me at all. I realized it was a quote alright, but that didn't lead to getting his point.

[grant hutchison]

It certainly resembles willful obscurity...That's the second post, after they already didn't get it.The post I quoted is the one Henrik quoted when he responded (http://www.bautforum.com/1645225-post204.html) with his "communicating badly" cartoon. I assumed there was a link between that content and Henrik's response. And the link seemed to make sense.

The plot grows ever more confusing ... :lol:

Grant Hutchison

[Jeff Root]

You're all wrong. Nobody is confused.

However, I insist on having Graham inspect Gillianren to ensure that her
ribbing is intact. If it turns out to be a rib-ticking experience, I expect
to read a good review of it.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jeff Root]

Oh, that reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask for some time.

What is a "plot"?

Not the conspiracy kind, like a plot to rib Gillian. The story kind. Some
stories have a lot more plot than others, even if they are the same length.
It isn't at all clear to me what a "plot" is.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[grant hutchison]

What is a "plot"?

Not the conspiracy kind, like a plot to rib Gillian. The story kind. Some
stories have a lot more plot than others, even if they are the same length.
It isn't at all clear to me what a "plot" is.The relevant entry in the OED reads:
The plan or scheme of any literary creation, as a play, poem, or work of prose fiction.So it's the layout of the principle elements of the story: how the characters interact, what their motives are, when certain pieces of information are revealed to the reader, how story events influence the characters' decisions, and so on. That particular usage is related to the "plot" of a theatre production, which describes the disposition of lights and stage furniture, and to the "plot" of data points in a graph.

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

Do you suspect that what he was really looking for in the first place was to have his spelling snarkily corrected? I suspect not.

I did not feel I was being snarky. I felt I was being silly. Perhaps it's because I so seldom am that the confusion arose.


If all you'd had was the second sentence, you could say that "all you did" was answer his question. With the first part there, though...

His question was answered with "neither," because both were, due to the spelling error, incorrect. However, what I meant was that I didn't really respond to the rest of his post, and because he hadn't quoted himself in his own snarky response to me, I had no idea what he was talking about. I didn't bother going back to look at the rest of the post. I generally assume that, if you're referring to something important previously said, you'll take the effort to quote it. Since he didn't, I'm not sure why anyone else got what he was talking about, either, unless they didn't read the thread from before the post which caused all this to after the confusion began.


Again, just to clarify, I don't think there was anything wrong with your post. But there was nothing wrong with dhd40's response to it, either - it was in kind.

It was missing vital information; mine was not.


The only clarification I might've suggested would be to put the quote in QUOTE tags - but, then, I do that everytime I quote, anyway. A lot of posters don't, though.

The part I quoted would not have had the error in it, because that part wasn't relevant to my response.


I certainly don't think it qualifies as "willful obscurity," though - if you want an example of that, might I suggest Henrik's post where he quoted dhd40 and then linked to the xkcd comic with no commentary of his own at all?

I'll agree I felt the comment to be unnecessary, but I have to say, it feels, given the lack of information which would have cleared it all up, pretty willful to me.


Not the conspiracy kind, like a plot to rib Gillian. The story kind. Some stories have a lot more plot than others, even if they are the same length. It isn't at all clear to me what a "plot" is.

You'll understand it's been a while since I've had specific lessons in plotting, so my response is going to be kind of vague and lacking a lot of technical terms. But, with that in mind, here we go.

Very, very broadly, a plot is what happens in a story. However, that's a pretty unsatisfactory answer, I know. For example, I watched a nearly four-hour movie a couple of weeks ago in which a few things happened, but it didn't feel as though it had a plot. So we'll get more specific.

Traditionally, in basic story-writing classes, they draw out the plot as a bell curve. The beginning of the curve is where you're establishing your story; the peak is where the most action takes place. The end is where it's wrapping up. Obviously, a good story will have a much shorter ending than buildup. However, it's a simplified explanation, so we start there and learn more. The curve is supposed to trace the activity of a protagonist, a character who drives the story forward. The path they travel through their own story is the plot. If the "arc" goes up and down, as it were, there's more plot. That movie I watched seemed to mostly be flat with one peak five minutes before the end, after which it immediately dropped again; the film ended with a five-minute shot (no, that's not exaggeration) of the "main character" sitting at a table, staring into space. Technically, she was drinking coffee, but she didn't move much.

[Chuck]

http://abstrusegoose.com/151

[SeanF]

I did not feel I was being snarky. I felt I was being silly. Perhaps it's because I so seldom am that the confusion arose.
Silly's fair enough. :)


His question was answered with "neither," because both were, due to the spelling error, incorrect.
No. It was, as you said, silly - it was not legitimately an answer to his question.


However, what I meant was that I didn't really respond to the rest of his post, and because he hadn't quoted himself in his own snarky response to me, I had no idea what he was talking about.
Yes, he did quote himself. He just didn't put it in QUOTE tags.


I didn't bother going back to look at the rest of the post. I generally assume that, if you're referring to something important previously said, you'll take the effort to quote it. Since he didn't, I'm not sure why anyone else got what he was talking about, either, unless they didn't read the thread from before the post which caused all this to after the confusion began.
I've been reading the thread from the beginning, and I got it.


It was missing vital information; mine was not.
Can't agree (about dhd40's post, that is :) ). As I said before, I would have set off the quotation as a quotation, but all the necessary information was there. He said, "You missed this:", he reproduced the sentence that included what you missed, and he emphasized the missed word. What more could possibly be vital?

[grant hutchison]

For example, I watched a nearly four-hour movie a couple of weeks ago in which a few things happened, but it didn't feel as though it had a plot.
...
That movie I watched seemed to mostly be flat with one peak five minutes before the end, after which it immediately dropped again; the film ended with a five-minute shot (no, that's not exaggeration) of the "main character" sitting at a table, staring into space. Technically, she was drinking coffee, but she didn't move much.La Belle Noiseuse?

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

La Belle Noiseuse?

No, actually. I don't think I finished that one. I wouldn't have finished this one had it not turned out that there are essentially no films starting with the letter "J." (Lots of History Channel/A&E/PBS specials, but those aren't helpful for writing reviews of.) This one is Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles. Even the title is long and dull.

ETA--"You missed this" still did not, to me, indicate that it was something he had said in that post.

[grant hutchison]

Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles.Ah, haven't seen it. The long "coffee drinking" last scene seems familiar, however.

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

Ah, haven't seen it. The long "coffee drinking" last scene seems familiar, however.

There are at least four!

[HenrikOlsen]

http://abstrusegoose.com/151
Was that supposed to be another example of misuse of English supposedly being funny?

[grant hutchison]

There are at least four!Four films that end with a five-minute sequence in which a female protagonist drinks coffee uneventfully?
Surely even French cinema cannot countenance such horror.

Grant Hutchison

[danscope]

"No, actually. I don't think I finished that one. I wouldn't have finished this one had it not turned out that there are essentially no films starting with the letter "J."
*********
:) Actually there is a very good movie starring Vanessa Redgrave and Jane Fonda called "Julia", from 1970 I think. Quite a good film.
Best regards,
Dan

[grant hutchison]

"No, actually. I don't think I finished that one. I wouldn't have finished this one had it not turned out that there are essentially no films starting with the letter "J."
*********
:) Actually there is a very good movie starring Vanessa Redgrave and Jane Fonda called "Julia", from 1970 I think. Quite a good film. I'm guessing Gillianren is working from some sort of restricted list.

Otherwise she could choose from various watchable and near-watchable options like Jules et Jim, Jabberwocky, Juno, Jackie Brown, Jámon Jámon, Jaws, Jésus de Montréal, JFK, Jefferson in Paris, Jarhead ... I'd throw in Joe Versus The Volcano, Jagged Edge, the first Jurassic Park and the first Jeepers Creepers, but that's almost certainly just me. :)

Grant Hutchison

[Jeff Root]

Just so she doesn't have to say it yet again, Gillian is viewing the films her
public library has on DVD, in alphabetical order.

Let's see if she has enough self-control to resist saying the obvious about
the "coffee-drinking" scenes. I know I wouldn't.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[SolusLupus]

I thought she was relying on a book, 1001 Movies You Should See Before You Die.

ETA: Gillian says both.

[Gillianren]

Four films that end with a five-minute sequence in which a female protagonist drinks coffee uneventfully?
Surely even French cinema cannot countenance such horror.

No--four five-minute coffee-drinking sequences in one movie.

I am using the library's collection as my primary source. (I've just added JFK to my hold list, for my sins, and have not yet gotten far enough along to see if they have Julia, which I'd quite like to see. On the other hand, I should be timing it just about right for Julie & Julia, which I am certain won't be as good as the book.) When there are things on my 1001 list (from a book called 1001 Movies You Should See Before You Die) which the library doesn't have, I then go to Netflix. Sometimes, it turns out they just aren't available on DVD (I really wanted to see Faster, Pussycat, Kill! Kill! though), and then, I just apparently won't see them before I die. I do also see movies in the theatre sometimes and own more than 500. At least Graham and I do between us.

[Jeff Root]

Couldn't resist.

That was an okay start on explaining what a plot is. I am having a hard
time imagining what part of a plot could be plotted by a bell curve.
Stories more often seem to follow an inverted bell curve: Something
surprising and intriguing at the beginning, followed by an investigation
and analysis to try to figure out what is going on or what to do about
it, climaxed by the explanation or solution, and then everyone dies
and/or somebody says something funny and/or profound-sounding.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Gillianren]

Take Gone With the Wind. As the story starts, book or movie, Scarlett is sitting on the front steps of Tara with the Tarleton twins, talking about the Wilkes's barbecue for the next day--after Scarlett swears she'll just scream if they mention "war" one more time. (This is not a single-curve story, but it's a good place to start.) From there, the Civil War section is pretty much building up to the burning of the Atlanta munitions scores and her flight with Mellie, the baby, Prissie, and (in the book) little Wade Hampton back to Tara.

[grant hutchison]

No--four five-minute coffee-drinking sequences in one movie.Ah, thank you. :)
It's just that I'd mentioned recollecting a long coffee-drinking last scene, so your "There are at least four!" seemed to imply that you were aware of four such last scenes. I was quite prepared to believe that you'd seen at least four films end that way, given the number of films you've watched, but it was an alarming idea.

Grant Hutchison

[Gillianren]

Sorry for the confusion. I just get so bewildered when I talk about that film!

[danscope]

Hi Gillian, My wife,Celine and I loved Julie and Julia ! I do hope you enjoy it.
The scenes in Paris alone are worth the ticket.
Have a great day, and see you at the movies.

Dan

[Gillianren]

Um . . . it's been out of the theatres for months and is now on DVD. Besides, I don't like Meryl Streep.

[dhd40]

Back from a short vacation period I see so many posts dealing with my confusing "its-it's" issue (now I also recognize the difference between an apostrophe and an accent on my keybord! Thanks).
I can assure you that none of my posts was (were?) meant to be an affront, definitively not.
I meant to blame myself for mixing up "its" and "it's", especially after having "blamed" English speaking people for doing so, see post #32. I was actually waiting for someone to point towards this inconsistency.

Some have understood intentions, others haven't. I guess it's not always too difficult to misunderstand my English

[HenrikOlsen]

Its a collective noun as well, isn´t it :rolleyes:
I think I see where I misunderstood you on that one, I read the ":rolleyes:" as commenting on the sentence instead of being part of the quote and took the bolding to indicate the object of the sentence rather than pointing out what was wrong with it, so I started trying to figure out how "its" can be a collective noun:)

Then the comment about not getting it looked like a case of being mocked for misunderstanding something that was deliberately communicated badly, hence the cartoon link.

[Strange]

Henrik, that is exactly the way I (mis)understood it as well. And it is supposed to be my first language.

[dhd40]

I think I see where I misunderstood you on that one, I read the ":rolleyes:" as commenting on the sentence instead of being part of the quote and took the bolding to indicate the object of the sentence rather than pointing out what was wrong with it, so I started trying to figure out how "its" can be a collective noun:)

Then the comment about not getting it looked like a case of being mocked for misunderstanding something that was deliberately communicated badly, hence the cartoon link.

I was just a little bit irritated by your cartoon link, because I couldn't understand the background.
Now I know better. Sorry for the hubbub I provoked.

[Fazor]

I have a minute before I lock-up at work, so I thought I'd ask this:

The other day, I was trying to verify the spelling of "Satellite" using my normal lazy method: a Google search using FFox's quick-search box.

Typically, if the word is spelled wrong, it will say "Did you mean [correct word]?" But my initial search was for "Satelite" with one "L". It did not ask if I meant "Satellite". Not only that, but it returned many, many results for sites that use "satelite". Some of them were major companies (Sirius Satelite Radio was one near the top, IIRC). Yet the annoying red underline under "Satelite" persisted, so I checked with Webster's Dictionary (dictionary.com). Satelite didn't come back as a word, but "Satellite" did.

So what's the deal? Is one-L acceptable, or should it be two? I think the word looks better with only one. But what I think and what is correct aren't often the same.

[Otherworldly]

I have a minute before I lock-up at work, so I thought I'd ask this:

The other day, I was trying to verify the spelling of "Satellite" using my normal lazy method: a Google search using FFox's quick-search box.

Typically, if the word is spelled wrong, it will say "Did you mean [correct word]?" But my initial search was for "Satelite" with one "L". It did not ask if I meant "Satellite". Not only that, but it returned many, many results for sites that use "satelite". Some of them were major companies (Sirius Satelite Radio was one near the top, IIRC). Yet the annoying red underline under "Satelite" persisted, so I checked with Webster's Dictionary (dictionary.com). Satelite didn't come back as a word, but "Satellite" did.

So what's the deal? Is one-L acceptable, or should it be two? I think the word looks better with only one. But what I think and what is correct aren't often the same.

I don't know if this Google "did you mean <something else>" thing is really a spell checker, I think it might just match similar "words" found out on the internet in large numbers. If a misspelling is common enough, you might get the misspelled word as the suggested alternative.

But, I use Firefox, and all I have to do is right-click on the red squiggle thing, and it gives me suggestions. If I type "Satelite", one of the suggested alternatives is "Satellite".

[HenrikOlsen]

So what's the deal? Is one-L acceptable, or should it be two? I think the word looks better with only one. But what I think and what is correct aren't often the same.
Try http://www.onelook.com/ for dictionary searches over multiple dictionaries and encyclopediae.
Simply counting the number of dictionaries that have entries for satellite vs. those that have for satelite (27 vs. 4, 3 of which are misspelling redirects and the last is for company names plus a misspelling redirect) shows that, except in the company name, single-l is never acceptable, neither in English- nor American English.

[SeanF]

I have a minute before I lock-up at work, so I thought I'd ask this:

The other day, I was trying to verify the spelling of "Satellite" using my normal lazy method: a Google search using FFox's quick-search box.

Typically, if the word is spelled wrong, it will say "Did you mean [correct word]?" But my initial search was for "Satelite" with one "L". It did not ask if I meant "Satellite". Not only that, but it returned many, many results for sites that use "satelite". Some of them were major companies (Sirius Satelite Radio was one near the top, IIRC). Yet the annoying red underline under "Satelite" persisted, so I checked with Webster's Dictionary (dictionary.com). Satelite didn't come back as a word, but "Satellite" did.

So what's the deal? Is one-L acceptable, or should it be two? I think the word looks better with only one. But what I think and what is correct aren't often the same.
Something odd there.

Do a Google search for "satelite" with the quotation marks, then do the search again without them. You get different results. Without the quotes, you get results that don't appear to have the word "satelite" anywhere on them, but do in fact include the word "satellite."

However, if you search for "satellite" (with or without quotes), you get far more results.

[Fazor]

I don't know if this Google "did you mean <something else>" thing is really a spell checker, I think it might just match similar "words" found out on the internet in large numbers. If a misspelling is common enough, you might get the misspelled word as the suggested alternative.
Corret. That's why I said my "lazy method". If I'm really looking for the spelling, I typically use dictionary.com.

[grant hutchison]

The other day, I was trying to verify the spelling of "Satellite" using my normal lazy method: a Google search using FFox's quick-search box.Just. Never. Do. That.
You're just asking the Internet to provide a show of hands on your choice of spelling. Many of those "voting" were careless, stupid or in a hurry at the time they registered their vote; some were deliberately misspelling, and some may be using another word entirely. None of them felt any responsibility for your spelling choices at the time they registered their vote.

("Satellite" is the only correct spelling. "Satelite" is a trade name or a mistake.)

Grant Hutchison