Periods Meeting Quotes

@OmSigDAVID,

Perhaps shooting lessons would be a good idea in Chicago Dave. The gang members seem to be missing their targets a great deal which is a shame really.

I think the right to bear arms was a measure which had not thought 2 4c the armoury of our modern governments. The defensive posture seems to me to be an excuse to hide the compensatory nature of bang-bangs for those with little dicks who have never experienced the whites of the eyes of a real enemy. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Quote:

Nightsticks and water cannons, tear gas, padlocks
Molotov cocktails and rocks behind every curtain
False-hearted judges dying in the webs that they spin
Only a matter of time 'til the night comes stepping in.

Bob Dylan. Jokerman.

0 Replies

boomer:
maybe u 'd wanna show Mo;
see what u think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X64xRTdXOAs&feature=relmfu

David

0 Replies

boomer,
its too late for this year,
but in case u and Mo are interested in future years,
here is a link to the World Championships:
http://sassnet.com/EoT/downloads/EOT12Program.pdf

U might consider showing it to him.

David

0 Replies

@JTT,

JT--Is this correct--"there are a few Barbie types in taverns" or should it be "is"?

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

JT--Is this correct--"there are a few Barbie types in taverns" or should it be "is"?

You've started out with a misleading premise, Spendi.

For NaE speech, the overwhelming tendency is for speakers to choose "there's + plural subject - There's two men at the door.

This is the same with 'where/how/here'.

Here's your keys.

How's your mom and dad?

Where's the forks?

I'll check to see if BrE follows a similar pattern.

2 Replies

How did you check to see that that is the tendency in North American English?

'Where's your keys?' sounds weird to my ear and I said it aloud and it didn't come out of my mouth naturally.

I'd say 'Where're your keys?' (the contraction sort of slurring the where and are together so it sound like Where-er' ) or I'd just go ahead and say 'Where are your keys?' but I'd never say 'Where's your keys?'
I would say, 'Where's the door?' or Where's the map?' or 'Where's my shoe - I can't find it.'
Whereas if I had lost both shoes, I'd say, 'Where ARE my frigging shoes?'

I'd also say, 'How're your Mom and Dad?'

I honestly don't know what most North Americans say in such instances, but I don't think it would sound so weird to my ear if I had in fact grown up hearing people say 'Where's you keys,' so I'm just wondering how you checked.

Do you think it could be a regional thing?

I mean in New Jersey you hear people say, 'Yous guys' all the time whereas you'd never hear that in Texas - down there its 'Ya'll'.

2 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

How did you check to see that that is the tendency in North American English?

'Where's your keys?' sounds weird to my ear and I said it aloud and it didn't come out of my mouth naturally.

I'd say 'Where're your keys?' (the contraction sort of slurring the where and are together so it sound like Where-er' )
or I'd just go ahead and say 'Where are your keys?' but I'd never say 'Where's your keys?'
I would say, 'Where's the door?' or Where's the map?' or 'Where's my shoe - I can't find it.'
Whereas if I had lost both shoes, I'd say, 'Where ARE my frigging shoes?'

I'd also say, 'How're your Mom and Dad?

Rebecca, saying: "where is the dogS?" or "where 's the dogS" is simply an entropic corruption of reasoning,
the same as if someone miscalculates his arithmetic
when he presents u his bill.

Its analogous to people who, in their stupidity or negligence,
corrupted the old expression of not being able to care less than thay do
because thay don't care at all,
to its OPPOSITE, by omitting the word: "not"
and expecting it to mean the same thing.

To do this knowingly, or to accept it,
is to adopt the filosofy that flaws & errors r as good as perfect accuracy.
[ "Are" is incorrect, imperfect & flawed. R is logically correct. ]

When I was hiring either professional personnel
or support staff for my law firm, I was alert to such expressed errors,
on the theory that this indicates the low degree of discrimination
between what is good and what is flawed. Applicants who spoke
or wrote illogically might as well have been wearing signs
that say: " I am stupid or negligent." No sale. Good bye. Next.
For the relatively few jobs that I had to offer (maybe 7, maybe 3),
1OOs of resumes arrived in response to a few days of advertizing
in several newspapers, so I wanted the most elite of the very best available applicants.

[ Note that back in the 1970s and 1980s, when I was hiring,
I was not into promoting fonetic spelling, nor did I get into it until
after I retired from the practice of law.]

David

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David - yes, I know this is not the norm and agree. I'm just wondering how JTT checked or arrived at the conclusion that most North American speakers of English use a singular verb with a plural subject.

I'm saying that I've not heard that in the majority of cases that I can remember hearing people speak in North America - and I've lived and worked in the north and south up and down the east coast of the country and among people of varying levels of education and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Maybe it's in the midwest and out west that they do this routinely. I don't know - I'm asking.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen - I'm sure it does. I'm just wondering how he knows it is the majority of North American English speakers who use that particular grammatical construction.

I would definitely say, 'There;re (there are) a few Barbie types as opposed to 'Rhere's (or there is) a few Barbie types.

2 Replies

Every one of you are imbeciles.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Bloody hell JT-- "there's" is just a lazy "there is". And I was writing, not speaking. Not that I don't sometimes write speech forms.

So you favour "there is a few Barbie types in taverns" That looks correct because the "a few" is singular. There is a gaggle of angry geese.

I found an example in Gibbon whose English is generally thought impeccable--
" A considerable portion of his oriental spoils was consecrated to the gods of Rome."

In Boswell and Johnson "you was" and "we was" are the normal. Which I find nice. It is usual now for young women to say "I were". Especially those educated on the back row of D stream classes who become barmaids in later life. The very salt of the earth. It is beneficial, as a rule, to get distance between oneself and teachers.

Erudite female academic types are exceedingly tiresome and their recruitment into Media is, I think, one of the principle causes of all the confusion.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Thank u for that information, Jo.
We were all trying to figure out whether or not we were imbeciles.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Yes. That 's what we learned English to be.
The logic is conspicuous & common sense.

From his semi-hysterical posts of the last few years,
I suspect that in his youth, JTT had a bad experience
with a grammar teacher, against whose principles
he seeks to lead a symbolic rebellion.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

When I was hiring either professional personnel
or support staff for my law firm, I was alert to such expressed errors,
on the theory that this indicates the low degree of discrimination
between what is good and what is flawed. Applicants who spoke
or wrote illogically might as well have been wearing signs
that say: " I am stupid or negligent." No sale. Good bye. Next.
For the relatively few jobs that I had to offer (maybe 7, maybe 3),
1OOs of resumes arrived in response to a few days of advertizing
in several newspapers, so I wanted the most elite of the very best available applicants.

Goodness gracious!! I never thawt Dave was such an important person. I will try 2 treet him with more respect from now on. I have been thinking all this time that he is a complete tosspot.

But "R is logically correct" is plain silly when unemployment is such a big issue and R is so much more a time and and labour saving construction than "are". One might even say subversive. Revolutionary. Left-wing madness. As if efficiency will ever create jobs when it is efficiency that has exterminated so many. Think of the ink, the trees, the pulping and rolling mills, the transport, the time needed to write, print and read the extra two letters.

I often feel a bit guilty when I use, say, 777 rather than seven hundred and seventy seven.

I sometimes wonder whether Dave wears his underpants outside his trowsers.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

So you favour "there is a few Barbie types in taverns" That looks correct because the "a few" is singular. There is a gaggle of angry geese.

How is 'few' singular? Few is not a collective noun in the same way 'gaggle' and 'children' are. It's an adjective - the object of the sentence he was questioning was 'types' which is definitely plural.
Think about it - 'many are called - few are chosen'.

Quote:

I found an example in Gibbon whose English is generally thought impeccable--
" A considerable portion of his oriental spoils was consecrated to the gods of Rome."

Well yeah - that makes sense because it was only one considerable portion. If it'd been two portions he'd have said, 'Two portions of his oriental spoils were consecrated to the gods of Rome'.

Quote:

In Boswell and Johnson "you was" and "we was" are the normal. Which I find nice. It is usual now for young women to say "I were". Especially those educated on the back row of D stream classes who become barmaids in later life. The very salt of the earth. It is beneficial, as a rule, to get distance between oneself and teachers.

Oh, only young women? Here in Somerset, I hear people say all the time, 'and I were on my way to the pub when I saw thus and such on his tractor and blah, blah, blah...' Or 'and we was having such a great time - warn't we Clive?'
I don't have any problem with it either - in fact, I love it. I really enjoy diversity in speech patterns. I can think of nothing more boring than if we all spoke alike.
I'm not a presciptivist at all - I'm just wondering where JTT has heard this pattern of speech or grammar in North America - because I can't say that I have.

I've been listening to this video over and over again - mainly because it reminds me of work and highlights the diversity of speech patterns and accents I get to be enveloped by every day which I happen to really enjoy. Excuse the profanity (David especially hates it) but it just helps paint an even more accurate picture of what I hear. I think it's important for David to hear this, as he will then see how absolutely ILLOGICAL it is to expect to have only one method of phonetic spelling. It's just not possible:

3 Replies

@aidan,

Rebecca--You might like the "6 letter words, and use 3 letters to start a new word..." game if you read the new rules on the previous few pages and the argument about them.

You might not of course. It is your privilege to like it or not like it as you see fit. Just as it was for the team-mate's girlfriend whose perfectly free choice Ferdinand was being so sexist about when he was winding up John Terry when he was tired enough for him to come to the defence of the resourceful, upthrusting modern western female.

Ferdinand, being of the blokes union, never even considered in his misogynistic tirade that the lady might dispose of her favours any way she thought fit without some chap getting uptight about it.

0 Replies

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

I think it's important for David to hear this, as he will then see how absolutely ILLOGICAL it is to expect to have only one method of phonetic spelling. It's just not possible:

I've told David countless times that his ferne'ic approach only works if everybody spoke with a New York accent. Have I had any success?

Have I ****.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

When I was hiring either professional personnel
or support staff for my law firm, I was alert to such expressed errors,
on the theory that this indicates the low degree of discrimination
between what is good and what is flawed. Applicants who spoke
or wrote illogically might as well have been wearing signs
that say: " I am stupid or negligent." No sale. Good bye. Next.
For the relatively few jobs that I had to offer (maybe 7, maybe 3),
1OOs of resumes arrived in response to a few days of advertizing
in several newspapers, so I wanted the most elite of the very best available applicants.

Actually Dave, that is absolute tautological tripe because you have defined what elite is according to your idiotic prejudices. It is quite possible that among the large number you rejected there were people who would have turned out a much greater asset to your firm. The larger the number of the rejected the more probable that is.

I daresay that a study of such matters would show that choosing the "maybe seven, maybe 3" from the list would be just as efficient for your firm if you crossed out all the ones with no u in their name to get a shortlist and then cut cards between them. The "them" refers to the "ones" and not the shortlist.

Morgan Chase use your method and for the same reason. It's a power play. Supplicants at your knees. Attenuated by high unemployment.

As if someone who has all his i's dotted and his t's crossed and his p's and q's in a neat row to your satisfaction is not more likely than those with a low degree of discrimination between what is good and what is flawed to take your firm to the cleaners.

An authority figure such as you obviously are should be able to impose on your underlings what is good and what is flawed. What is good and what is flawed are both highly relative concepts. Taking your firm to the cleaners would be good to some and flawed to others.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

How is 'few' singular? Few is not a collective noun in the same way 'gaggle' and 'children' are. It's an adjective - the object of the sentence he was questioning was 'types' which is definitely plural.
Think about it - 'many are called - few are chosen'.

Well--I am open to suggestions concerning these important matters. I was thinking the "a" few designated a singular. We don't say "a dogs". I think "few" is a collective noun. "There's a few steamers over in the beer tent Joe." (There's being "there is" contracted in speech to save energy in the vocal system but not in Hansard I shouldn't {should not} think).

But I do see that "few" as a collective noun in that case is a trifle misogynistic. So there is a PC case for denying "few" as a collective noun. It is not polite to think of ladies as a collective. But if four young men walked into a pub in Blackpool during Glasgow Wakes week and beheld a few Barbie types sitting and standing at one end of the bar, chattering away animatedly, they would think of them as a collective. Definitely. I've done it. More than a few times. Ask a sailor who goes on long sea trips.

When we gave women the vote we threw away our last line of defence and are now at their mercy. They even deny that "few" is a collective noun because it undermines their sense of individual excellence. As Lawrence had his gamekeeper do to the excellence of the lady in the piece.

I knew the problem when I wrote the expression. That's why I raised it. It's too intricate to be prescribed.

You can't treat Edward Gibbon like that Rebecca. "A considerable portion" is ironic. It means as small an amount as it was possible to get away with and prevent the populace murmuring. Gibbon assumes his readers have an understanding of human nature.

Quote:

'and I were on my way to the pub when I saw thus and such on his tractor and blah, blah, blah...

What a stage to set for a short piece of creative writing that is. Fancy resorting to " thus and such" and " blah, blah, blah...". I know you got a tractor in but still.... I would have at least alluded to what a good time we was having. In the setting I think "great" is slightly inauthentic. "Good time" is what I would expect to hear. Nobody calls goodies greaties. Not yet anyway. Great is a bit posh.

"Ee bah gum that wor a good time we had last neet worn't it Fred--we was int 'orse 'n 'ounds an' a couple o' owd bats is camped on't bar, abaat thirty--thirty five, an' a guz up to 'em an' sez tut one wi' biggest knockers 'hexcuse moi Madame, have you had the pleasure of meeting Frederick here? Allow me to introduce him.' "

That gives a particular sense of a good time without going into too many details. Exposes the writer to view. Someone who has a good time skiing would write in another vein.

Saying a "good time" or a "great time" is so neutral. Coy.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Question, Spendius concerning your sentence:

Quote:

"There's a few steamers over in the beer tent Joe."

Forget the contraction for a moment...and have the sentence stand uncontracted.

To my ears, "There are a few steamers over in the beer tent, Joe" sounds infinitely better than, "There is a few steamers over in the beer tent, Joe."

Does the contraction make the difference?

3 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Well--I am open to suggestions concerning these important matters. I was thinking the "a" few designated a singular. We don't say "a dogs". I think "few" is a collective noun. "There's a few steamers over in the beer tent Joe." (There's being "there is" contracted in speech to save energy in the vocal system but not in Hansard I shouldn't (should not) think.

And we don't say 'two or three fews' so the article as singular or plural when referring to the word 'few' is immaterial - it's always singular - either 'a' or sometimes 'the'.
In your sentence, the Barbie types were/was the collective and 'a few' was the descriptor - or adjective.
Few CAN be a noun as in , 'Please bring me a 'few' but it wasn't in the sentence JTT quoted.

Quote:

What a stage to set for a short piece of creative writing that is. Fancy resorting to " thus and such" and " blah, blah, blah...". I know you got a tractor in but still.... I would have at least alluded to what a good time we was having. In the setting I think "great" is slightly inauthentic. "Good time" is what I would expect to hear. Nobody calls goodies greaties. Not yet anyway. Great is a bit posh.

I was in a hurry. My daughter was standing here waiting for me to get her to the bus station so she could go to work.
I have been termed 'posh' before - I don't think I'm TYPICALLY posh - and in fact I consider myself to be pretty UNposh - but I have a soft speaking voice so that might have something to do with it.
David has met me - he knows I'm not posh.

Quote:

"Ee bah gum that wor a good time we had last neet worn't it Fred--we was int 'orse 'n 'ounds an' a couple o' owd bats is camped on't bar, abaat thirty--thirty five, an' a guz up to 'em an' sez tut one wi' biggest knockers 'hexcuse moi Madame, have you had the pleasure of meeting Frederick here? Allow me to introduce him.' "

It gives a particular sense of a good time. Exposes the writer to view. Someone who has a good time skiing would write in another vein. Saying a "good time" or a "great time" is so neutral. Coy.

Yeah - well, you've had years and years to get your ear attuned to that. I bet you couldn't write a more authentic line of American southern or New Jersey suburban girl dialogue than I could.
Give me a break...
I am always listening though and I do love it so I will get better at it.

1 Reply

Periods Meeting Quotes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know