farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 05:38 pm
@contrex,
Last time I heard "bird" used by Englishmen was on a Benny Hill show. To the US folks a "bird" is
1 Showing another, ones middle finger while rolling the other fingers of the same hand into a fist.

2 A famous jazz musician (then its capitalized)

3 A "father" of plate tectonics (do as above)

4. To hound or otherwise follow someone while they are fully aware that this is going on

5. A "hit of heroin" (unique to several urban areas only)



Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 05:53 pm
@farmerman,
"Bird" = http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg688/scaled.php?server=688&filename=chickadee.jpg&res=landing
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 06:01 pm
@Ticomaya,
oh yeh, that too.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 06:13 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Just in this thread, you've gone from probably to may. [You earlier went from damn sure to probably] It's easy to tell that you are learning, Frank, albeit, quite reluctantly - your embarrassed, and childish obtuseness illustrates that.


Sorry, JTT, but I do not do "embarrassed, childish obtuseness." But if saying that kind of thing helps with the problems you are having, please do continue to use it. I get a kick out of it and I am sure some of the others enjoy listening to you do it also.

But your best bet would be to calm down. Getting as worked up as you have over this issue is truly a bad sign. Conduct like this probably will not work out well for you...in fact, it may work out very poorly.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 06:14 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Did you learn this falsehood from Strunk & White, Frank, and now you are too ashamed to admit it, too ashamed to admit that S&W is one of the skinny little "grammar" books in your possession?


Still want it to be a falsehood, JTT!

You really have got to get over this.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 06:16 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I'm acquiver with nervous anticipation.


It you are acquiver, perhaps it is constipation rather than anticipation.

Stone is still stone over there, isn't it?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 06:48 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I know of stone as a Brit unit of weight of 13.75231 pounds avoirdupois.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 07:12 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Sorry, JTT, but I do not do "embarrassed, childish obtuseness."


That's another lie, Frank. You do it constantly, Frank. You ignore source material with all the ear plugging /lalalalalala that is often found in children.

Did you read right past this, Frank?

Quote:
Of course, you have a perfect right to hold the opinion that 'they' with a singular antecedent seems distasteful or ugly to you. In that case I would advise you not to use it. But don't call it a grammatical error, because it clearly isn't one, and never has been. Don't say that it betokens a breakdown in our ability to tell singular from plural, because it doesn't.

And don't allege that it generally introduces ambiguity, because it doesn't.



And this,


Quote:
And in contemporary Standard English, with antecedents like somebody or everyone or any citizen, people typically use the pronoun 'they' for "bound variable" meanings in this sort of syntactic situation.

Strunk and White baldly assert that this is an error. They simply say don't use 'they' with syntactically singular antecedents like somebody. They don't give a reason; and it is pretty clear they didn't know anything much about the literary evidence that 'they' has been grammatical and normal with singular antecedents for six or seven centuries. Strunk and White are just wrong about Standard English syntax, here as nearly everywhere else where they deal with grammar in their book The Elements of Style.

JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 07:15 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Did you learn this prescription from Strunk & White, Frank?

If so, are you now too ashamed to admit it?

If not, where did you learn it?

If S&W is one of your grammar sources, are you too ashamed to admit that?
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 07:17 pm
@farmerman,
Way to rain on Frank's parade, Farmer.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 07:57 pm
@Joe England,
In defence of JoefromChicago, that link you posted is to a thread started by someone named Joe England who claims to be an editor of sorts. JoefromChicago is a lawyer. I thinkyour personal bias is causing you to conflate two people here, JTT.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 08:45 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
In defence of JoefromChicago, that link you posted is to a thread started by someone named Joe England who claims to be an editor of sorts. JoefromChicago is a lawyer. I thinkyour personal bias is causing you to conflate two people here, JTT.


I would have to say that you haven't read the material in either thread, Merry. The Joe that advanced this bit of nonsense is lawyer Joe, and he is indeed from Chicago, or so we are led to believe from his avatar.

What troubles you so about doing some research before you write your post? I believe that you have before informed us here that you come from a newspaper background?

You defend lawyer Joe, an admirable thing if you weren't so out to lunch, but you then seek to tarnish Joe England for this nonsense. Research would have been so tough, Merry. Joe's post was buried on page 0ne!

When you finally find it, note that this prescription escaped Roberta, and Frank Apisa. Only eagle eye Eva noticed it, after Joefromyouknowwhere pointed it out.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 08:48 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
There's a whole new thread cataloging this prescription should it ever rear its ugly head again. If you would like to weigh in there, go to,

"Someone's" is incorrect. "Apostrophe s" is a contraction for "is," not "has".

http://able2know.org/topic/193397-1
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 10:05 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Stone is still stone over there, isn't it?

It was in the early 90's, Frank. Which, of course, may mean it's quaint and antiquated now.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 01:16 am
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Stone is still stone over there, isn't it?

It was in the early 90's, Frank. Which, of course, may mean it's quaint and antiquated now.


Stone are still stone. (The plural and singular are the same.) The unit was formerly used in trade for certain products (potatoes, wet fish, wool etc) (with varying values depending on the commodity!) but dropped out of use and the final blow was dealt by metrication in the 1980s. The only use of "stone" now (14 pounds avoirdupois) is as a measure of personal weight. I weigh 12 stone 4 lbs ("Twelve stone four") but I am also happy saying that I weigh 172 pounds or a shade over 78 kilogrammes. I think many older people may feel uncomfortable discussing personal weight in pounds (an American thing) and kg (European/foreign) though. Plus you have those weird nut cases ("metric martyrs") who get in the newspapers every now and then because they want to buy or sell products by the perch or ell or drachm or something,
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 02:23 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I know of stone as a Brit unit of weight of 13.75231 pounds avoirdupois.


Yup.

Two birds (both anorexic), one stone!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 02:24 am
@JTT,
Quote:
That's another lie, Frank. You do it constantly, Frank. You ignore source material with all the ear plugging /lalalalalala that is often found in children.


No, JTT...it is not a lie. You really have to get over this need of yours to call other people liars. It doesn't look good...makes you look a bit childish, in fact.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 02:28 am
@JTT,
Quote:
Did you learn this prescription from Strunk & White, Frank?

If so, are you now too ashamed to admit it?

If not, where did you learn it?

If S&W is one of your grammar sources, are you too ashamed to admit that?


One does not "admit" items like this. One acknowledges it.

I learned the grammar rules in grammar school. I'll be 76 in a couple of weeks, so some of what I learned may be dated. But any dating is mostly inconsequential except to anal people who obsess over it.

And presented the way I presented my comments...the "rules" are fine to share. They can be ignored...just as all of us ignore rules of grammar and spelling in our posts.

Try to calm down, JTT. Things are going to be alright. You are alright...no matter what you think of yourself.

Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 02:30 am
@JTT,
Quote:
Way to rain on Frank's parade, Farmer.


I do not think Farmerman was trying to "rain on my parade"...but if someone where to try to rain on anyone's parade, why would you applaud it?

Is that what you see as commendable in life...to rain on other people's parade?

Do you not see how childish that is?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 02:33 am
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
It was in the early 90's, Frank. Which, of course, may mean it's quaint and antiquated now.


I am a fight fan, Ti. In English prizefighting, the weight of the boxers are almost always given as "stone."

Saw one just last month.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

WHO WANT'S TO KILL APOSTROPHE'S? - Discussion by Setanta
RULES OF THE SEMICOLON, please - Question by farmerman
Punctuation in a quote - Question by DK
Punctuation smackdown! - Question by boomerang
Are the Bozo's in Washington Going the Keep the lights on ? - Discussion by hawkeye10
Non-Dialogue Quotation Marks and How to Punctuate Them - Question by michaelrans
Use of comma before "by" - Question by illitarate4life
Punctuation - Question by LBrinkmann
what is the name of the "/ / / " punctuation in legal writing to mark the end of a page - Question by dgdesq
Making actions clear - Question by clawincy
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Periods Meeting Quotes
  3. » Page 13
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 11:27:50
▲ ▼