"There was two Mini Cooper parked in front of my house", or "there WERE two mini coopers"?

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

You must realize of course, JTT, that the writer is an idiot.

This, from the idiot who argued himself into oblivion on 'can/may' and 'probably'.

Geoffrey K. Pullum
CURRICULUM VITAE

http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/mediumvita.pdf

0 Replies

@JTT,

I never claimed to be a prescriptivist. I bow to your better judgment you pedantic twit.

Quote:

The word were in the phrase if I were you is special form. It is known as the subjunctive mood (from the grammatical point of view).

Today you also find the phrase if I was you. Here the Simple Past form of be is used. But there are people who say that this phrase is incorrect and would never use it (mainly Americans). Others say that this phrase can be used.

These Americans eh? Real sticklers for form.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I never claimed to be a prescriptivist.

Really?

Quote:

I bow to your better judgment you pedantic twit.

Why are you calling me a "pedantic twit", Spendi?

Quote:

The word were in the phrase if I were you is special form. It is known as the subjunctive mood (from the grammatical point of view).

Today you also find the phrase if I was you. Here the Simple Past form of be is used. But there are people who say that this phrase is incorrect and would never use it (mainly Americans). Others say that this phrase can be used.

Who are you trying to convince?

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

I'm more than a little surprised that such a simple question could create such heat. I'm guessing this is more about personality clashes than grammar primers. I'm not interested in taking sides and I'm not sure at this point with which poster I may or may not agree. I'm not sure why I even posted since this whole whoop de do is pretty silly.

You take great pains to point up your ignorance, Glitterbag, but you offer nothing that addresses "such a simple question".

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Really?

Yeah, really!!

Quote:

Why are you calling me a "pedantic twit", Spendi?

Because you picked me up on a very minor matter about which there is no agreement you nit-picking, pedantic, prescriptivist , pompous pratt.

Quote:

Who are you trying to convince?

Anybody who might need it. Who are you trying to convince?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Because you picked me up on a very minor matter about which there is no agreement you nit-picking, pedantic, prescriptivist , pompous pratt.

No, I didn't at all. That was Setanta.

If you understood anything about descriptive/prescriptive you would know that I have absolutely no problem with 'was' for irrealis. If you had a memory that was even as remarkable as that of a gnat, you would have noticed that I set Setanta straight about this [again] on the first page of this thread.

But these language issues blow right by you because you have such a flimsy grasp of them. As you noted, you have fleeting memories of being introduced to these things. You have no real understanding of them.

But at least it got you doing some actual research instead of just blathering on and on.

Why didn't you set Setanta straight when this issue arose?

1 Reply

On the contrary, JTT. I was perfectly correct all along on "can/may" and "probably". You were the one who was wrong and remain so. I mean, my god, citing OmSigDavid as proof for your argument! And ignoring multiple dictionary definitions and using a bogus statistical argument from David while ignoring cited examples from actual scientific statistical arguments plus multiple people who disagreed with your usage, is simply loopy.

And I don't give a **** about Pullum's C.V. Go ahead, parse the last two sentences of his article so that it makes sense.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

No, I didn't at all. That was Setanta.

When I said "if I was you" you corrected me with --" "Were" is the past subjunctive form of to be in English, not was."

Setanta never responds to my posts.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

When I said "if I was you" you corrected me with --" "Were" is the past subjunctive form of to be in English, not was."

That was Setanta, Spendius. He reached out with his wisdom and smacked you down. Did you not notice that it was in italics? Go back to page one and read Set's posts to whoever was the guy he got in the battle with on the subjunctive.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

I mean, my god, citing OmSigDavid as proof for your argument!

You don't grasp irony well, do you, MJ? Odd that you would seize on this straw as you flailed about, drowning in your ignorance, isn't it?

Quote:

And ignoring multiple dictionary definitions and using a bogus statistical argument from David

Gee, there's David again. Is he the sum total of your "argument"?

And you ignored the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Funny you didn't mention that?

Dictionaries can be wrong, MJ. You have to understand language to sort out these anomalies. It took the OED until 1998 to declare the split infinitive rule dead. You're probably still not there.

Dictionaries still list 'might' as the past tense of 'may'; 'would' of 'will'; ... .

On the may/can issue you repeatedly misdescribed my position. I chalked it up to your rather poor understanding of how language works.

Quote:

while ignoring cited examples from actual scientific statistical arguments plus multiple people who disagreed with your usage, is simply loopy.

"multiple people"??!! There goes that vivid imagination again. Would any of those folks be from the Pet Peeves of English thread?

You ignored the "actual scientific statistical argument" that 'probable' is anything over 50%. You acknowledged it, as you had to, but then you dug in your heels and ignored it.

Herein,

http://able2know.org/topic/17175-2

Robert destroys, using pretty much the same arguments I did, your spurious contentions on probably/likely/should.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

That was Setanta, Spendius. He reached out with his wisdom and smacked you down. Did you not notice that it was in italics? Go back to page one and read Set's posts to whoever was the guy he got in the battle with on the subjunctive.

The fact that prescriptively your statements look correct doesn't prevent them being gibberish.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Another silly Spendius assertion.

1 Reply

JTT, Robert, in thqat thread, pretty much does what you do, i.e. simply assert over and over that his view is correct, with nothing to corroborate that. Frank uses the term differently than Robert and you. I use the term differently than you. Multiple dictionaries, who base their definitions on multiple examples o actual word usage, define it differently than you do. The scientific community, which bases their definition of the word on actual statistical usage (rather than the 50% figure you so blithely toss around) uses it differently than you do (and more in line with my usage).

There may be some people who use it as you do. There are also people who use it the way I, Frank, whoever participated in the original discussion, dictionaries, and scientists use it. On the whole, their usage makes more sense.

Let's take a real-world example. Coins aren't perfectly balanced--they're close but not truly random. If you knew a particular coin would turn up heads 51% of the time, would you be willing to bet your house at even odds that it would "probably" turn up heads on a single toss? Probably not.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Joan Acocella on The English Wars: The battle over the way we should speak.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/05/14/120514crbo_books_acocella#ixzz2MtTR0D4p

I haven't finished reading it yet, just saw a link yesterday.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Another silly Spendius assertion.

Okay. Go back to the beginning. I said "if I was you" and you made a comment about me doing so. Go from there and explain eh?

We don't want contra-prescriptivism being associated with freedom to make anything up on the basis that split infinitives are now okay.

0 Replies

@spendius,

I'm enjoying your engagement with Mister Bombastico from No Land, henceforth, MBNL.

Me, I'm surely not prescriptivist, in that I don't think writing sparely is the end all be all of why one types or pens, except for business letters, and even there, it depends on the business and the mode of the letter writers: not every missive needs to be corporate speak unless you hive in corporate land.

I'm surely not a descriptivist, in that I prefer some now old fashioned grammatical choices in most usage. I graduated from high school and I have purchased a couple of books.

I get people who play with writing style, including sometimes you. I fool with words, as well as being a fool with words.

Don't let this encomion put feathers in your cup.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

The last time I had feathers in my cup was when a lady and myself attended a fancy dress ball with her as an ostrich and me as a bushman.

1 Reply

@spendius,

There's a picture in words.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

When I said "if I was you" you corrected me with --" "Were" is the past subjunctive form of to be in English, not was."

As I mentioned, I didn't correct you, which I hope you're bright enough to realize by now.

You stated:

Quote:

Prescriptivism, as I have said without reply, is concerned with manners, etiquette and form as well as with communication. Fetish. Even superstition.

It also helps to form a disciplined mind.

If you failed to follow the prescription, and there is anything remotely resembling sense in what you stated, then you don't have a disciplined mind.

You also seem to be lacking manners, you obviously don't know much about etiquette or form for that matter.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

I'm surely not a descriptivist, in that I prefer some now old fashioned grammatical choices in most usage.

What does that mean, Osso? Of course you can treat that as a rhetorical question because even if you tried you couldn't provide a reasoned response.

Quote:

I graduated from high school and I have purchased a couple of books.

That's apparent.

1 Reply

"There was two Mini Cooper parked in front of my house", or "there WERE two mini coopers"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know