Thread: Pedantic Follies Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025058

---

Posted by Loquacious beachcomber (# 8783) on :
 
This game gives posters an opportunity to be a pedant; the idea is to find that in a previous post which can (and must) be corrected, while yourself making an error or two which, to a pedant, will be like chalk on a blackboard.
Theres' plenty of fun to be had here, in a kind, gentle, playful and thoroughly obnoxious manner, so put on you're thinking caps and jump right in.

[ 13. February 2013, 15:34: Message edited by: Ariston ]
 

---

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :
 
Oh dear, oh dear, ooooh dear. I'm sure you're quite a juggler in your own sweet way LQ, but please don't do it with apostrophes. Read Lynne Truss's excellent tomb on the subject (it's not really very long) and you won't be in such dire straights again.
 

---

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
Tomb? Surely the Pedant's Pedant hasn't been taken from us? Will Death never loose it's sting?

PS Just typing that, even in jest, is making my brain hurt ... I may have to go and lie down in a darkened room for a while.


 

---

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
It's a mystery to me why I lose things. I should of been more careful.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
You should HAVE been more careful - is good usage to much to ask?
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
Its clearly too much to ask for anyone to spot that Bean Sidhe is in dire straits when trying to write proper English.
 

---

Posted by Elemental (# 17407) on :
 
It's an obvious error their Chapelhead.
 

---

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
Surely you mean "there". There means something different to their.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
You're entirely correct there. This looks like a fun game, with lots of scope for posters to show off their talents and to demonstrate they're adept at writing inaccurately in a precise manner, in a way different from any other thread I have seen. In this case you have spotted my error and your precision has put me in the very unique position of being in the wrong, so I bow to your skill and hope that others will add their contributions to this thread.

[ 15. November 2012, 08:18: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
 

---

Posted by Elemental (# 17407) on :
 
Oh Chapelhead. Very unique? As if unique require's a qualifier.
 

---

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
Now, now, Elemental, the apostrophe rule is so elementary (geddit?) that even a small child should be able to grasp it. I know I was pulled up for incorrectly apostrophising (is that a word?) a plural when I was about six. And I've never forgotten the lesson. Typos are always possible of course, but it is all too convenient to casually put a glaring error down to "fat finger syndrome" rather than come clean about being ignorant.
 

---

Posted by Elemental (# 17407) on :
 
Jonah, I would complain about you're split infinitive, but only pretentious pedants attempt to apply Latin rules to a language which doesn't decline.
I will, however, point out that sentences beginning with prepositions are frankly poor form.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
As far as I know Jonah is not a spilt infinitive. As for the language that does not decline you will find that it does not need a comma before the "however" either. However, the prohibition against sentences beginning with propositions is almost obsolescent.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
You're a cunning linguist, Sioni, but as the issue is not yet obsolete it has not entirely become a moot point.
 

---

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Yet another split infinitive? It has not become entirely... is correcter, surely?
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
It may be more correct Jacobsen, but do it really matter?
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Since when has Ooo-Arrr Creamtealandese become Recieved Pronounciation?
 

---

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :
 
[tangent] I can't post on this thread, it sets my pendant's teeth on edge too badly! [/tangent]
 

---

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Ignoring as best I can that "not entirely . . . moot" is uncorrect in any event (a thing is either moot or not--there are no degrees of mootness), I need to point out, Chorie, that, while i-before-e is generally correct when spelling (except for weird words like "weird"), a recognized acception exists should there be a preceding "c".
 

---

Posted by Elemental (# 17407) on :
 
I'm not sure which worries me more FooloftheShip, that your pendant is toothed or that it is badly so. Does it bite it's chain?

I trust your pronunciation is better than your spelling, Chorister. Receiving hostly messages misspelled would be hard to bare.

[Edited to apologise for cross posting]

[ 15. November 2012, 20:50: Message edited by: Elemental ]
 

---

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
It is all very fine to apologise for a cross-post, but such public displays of nudity is something which up with I will not put!
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
A cunning plan to disguise a mismatch of number between noun and verb in what appears to be a Churchillian objection to ending a sentence with a preposition. A devious move, Hedgehog.

I am surprised that somewhen in the last 24 hours nobody has pointed out an error from my previous post, namely that ‘moot’ does not mean ‘irrelevant’; it means ‘subject to debate’. In an attempt to add a little more fun to this game, I will now try to slip three mistakes past the other participants on this thread. I am hoping that none of the other players here spot all three, so feel free to point out any one of them and continue with the game.

Naturally is it quite possible that there will be more than three errors, but only three are intentional. They are all errors in Chapelheads school of hyper-pedantry, so could be hard to spot. Or they could be very easy. And as I don’t regard starting a sentence with a preposition as wrong, neither this sentence not the previous one contain an intentional error in their first word.
 

---

Posted by Loquacious beachcomber (# 8783) on :
 
Oh, dear; Chapelheads ommision of a possessive apostraphe, combined with the substitution of as wrong in place of "to be wrong" and the use of not this sentence in place of "nor this sentence" all combine to take away the beauty of language used properly.
Surely, Chapellhead, you of all people do appreciate beautiful things, do you not?
 

---

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
I could be mistaken, of course, but I thought that, when using the construction of "neither X nor Y," one should not use the plural "their" but rather "its." Still, Chapelhead (using the more traditional single "l" spelling) has thrown down an intriguing gauntlet. If anything, it may get us away from punctuation issues which seem to be the principle errors used so far.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 21) on :
 
This post does not contain any deliberate errors - it is just observations on responses to my previous post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
Oh, dear; Chapelheads ommision of a possessive apostraphe,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
the substitution of as wrong in place of "to be wrong"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
not this sentence in place of "nor this sentence"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I could be mistaken, of course, but I thought that, when using the construction of "neither X nor Y," one should not use the plural "their" but rather "its."

---

quote:

---

(http://oxforddictionaries.com)
adjective
1 subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty: whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point

2 North American having little or no practical relevance:
the whole matter is becoming increasingly moot

---

quote:

---

Missing apostrophes make's me annoyed too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:
The North American meaning is different from the British meaning. This sort of thing literally makes my head explode.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:
So I believe there are two errors still to be found in my previous post.

---

quote:

---

I've looked everywhere for bits of Spike's head and found nothing, not so much as an eyeball, so I must conclude his head didn't literally explode. If anyone suspects that I'm disappointed, I refute that entirely.

---

quote:

---

In a similar vein (like a vein of ore, I suppose, though I've never considered where that expression came from before), an audience member once told me that he had been 'literally galvanised' by my lecture. Its nice to have an effect on one's listeners, of course, but it was the first time I'd been told that my words had led someone to become coated in zinc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

I am hoping that none of the other players here spot all three -- mismatch in number between subject and verb. None (singular) is the subject and so requires a singular verb: spots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

[N]either this sentence not [sic] the previous one contain an intentional error in their first word. -- Ditto.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

[N]either this sentence not [sic] the previous one contain an intentional error in their first word. -- Ditto.

---

I would say that this construction could take either a singular of plural verb. . . . So there remains one error from my first post of 16 November.

---

quote:

---

I would say that this construction could take either a singular of plural verb, depending on whether the noun is taken as a singular 'sentence' or the two sentences referred to. I prefer to treat it as a plural as their are two sentences involved.

---

Wrong ! Should be "there". Simple rule/advice: "There" is followed by a verb; "their" is followed by an adjective

I am with Miss Amanda ( ) on her insistence on a singular verb in the ...neither...nor construction.

I yield to no one in pedantry, but putting elementary things right is not pedantry. It's just ..um.. putting things right.

Chapelhead's school of pedantry should have an apostrophe; but Chapelheads School of Pendantry can have one or not, depending on how the founder(s) established the name.
 

---

Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chapelhead:

Naturally is it [ahem: it is] quite possible that there will be more than three errors, but only three are intentional.

---

• they are useful, and shorter than the equivalent 'at some time' and 'at any time'
• their meaning is clear - I don't think anyone reading my previous post would have been confused about my intention
• most importantly, I use them so they must be good.

quote:

---

Just commenting in passing... There aren't no mistakes in this post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morlader:

quote:

---

Just commenting in passing... There aren't no mistakes in this post.

---

Easy.. Either "There are no mistakes in this post" or "There aren't any mistakes in this post." The former much preferred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pia:
Do you mean an 'ellipsis", Morlader?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pia:
Do you mean an 'ellipsis", Morlader?

---

I'm sure he did mean that. It is so easy to muddle the present and pluperfect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pia:
Morlader's not the only one who should have paid more attention in English, KLB. It looks as if the majority of people on this thread were somewhat remiss during those lessons.

(And there's another deliberate mistake in my previous post that hasn't been picked up yet.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Well I suppose one wouldn't exactly go as far as calling hedgehog cuddly, but to suggest he (she?) is a fiend goes a little beyond the pail. And to suggest that he is your fiend implies a level of posessiveness that is quite extraordinary, it seems to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Well I suppose one wouldn't exactly go as far as calling hedgehog cuddly, but to suggest he (she?) is a fiend goes a little beyond the pail. And to suggest that he is your fiend implies a level of posessiveness that is quite extraordinary, it seems to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pia:
While Karl may have inferred that I was claiming possession, I certainly did not intend to imply any such thing.

Must get on with some work now, but I'll be back momentarily.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pia:
While Karl may have inferred that I was claiming possession, I certainly did not intend to imply any such thing.

Must get on with some work now, but I'll be back momentarily.

---

In which case it's a shame you'll only be here for a few seconds, unless of course your American.

---

quote:

---

Do not confuse advise with advice. Advise is a verb meaning 'suggest that someone should do something' (
I advised him to leave
), whereas advice is a noun that means 'suggestions about what someone should do' (
your doctor can give you advice on diet
).

---

Yes, I endorse the warning about goggling 'colon' - I know all too well the medical colon. Well, mine anyway.

[ 23. November 2012, 13:32: Message edited by: Morlader ]
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
When I investigate colons of any kind, I may wear spectacles and I could use a magnifying glass, a microscope or an internet search engine, but not the devices worn by vintage motorcyclists and pilots.

[ 23. November 2012, 13:39: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Well, I'm stumped, unless your "error" is that the motorcyclists and pilots should not be described as "vintage," its just their vehicles that are vintage.
 

---

Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :
 
Me too, Cara. The sentence could also have been punctuated differently, but I'm struggling to actually see anything I'd call a mistake.

I am also unsure (because of the lack of a 'location' for you) whether your comma inside quotation marks is a deliberate mistake or a legitimate US usage...

NB: This post contains a deliberate mistake (lest anyone think - horror! - that I might have done it inadvertently!).
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
I hope Sioni will elucidate, Pia.

Meanwhile, the comma inside the quotation marks wasn't intended as a deliberate mistake! I am English but lived in the US for years. Am now back in Yurp and trying to return to British usage, but ocasionally I forget which is which!!

However, there is also a deliberate mistake in that same post which you haven't mentioned.

Alas, I cannot detect the deliberate mistake in your own post, unless it's perhaps that "location" should have had double inverted commas rather than single.
Or that you should have said "made it inadvertently" rather than "done it" because one "makes" rather than "does" a mistake...

I had to laugh at your NB, in which you worry lest anyone think you'd made a mistake by mistake...I can relate, because I did just that in an earlier post, and it was kindly viewed as deliberate.....darned if I'm going to 'fess up!

So, by the same token, there's a new deliberate error in this post...but we're going to have to stop saying this, it could become a habit in this game!
 

---

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Just to clear off some of the debris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
its just their vehicles that are vintage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pia:
but I'm struggling to actually see anything I'd call a mistake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
it was kindly viewed as deliberate.....darned if I'm going to 'fess up!

---

There are to many dots in your ellipsis, which isn't a true ellipsis in any event because nothing is actually being omitted (except, arguably, a period).

Sioni has me puzzled as well. I might argue that the comma prior to "but" is not necessary--but that may well be another Pond Difference thing.
 

---

Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :
 
There are too many dots in Cara's ellipsis, but not enough o's in your to.

I am going to have to reign in my enthusiasm for this game for the night now, and go and get my poor abandoned children into bed. I'm hopelessly easily distracted!
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
[clarifying tangent with no intentional errors]
Oops! I thought that "could" was wrong and that "might" should have been used, as it follows "may". Then again, I might be wrong!
[/clarifying tangent with no intentional errors]

I would like to apologise for any inconvenience that may cause.
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Indeed, Hedgehog, you caught my "its" and Pia's split infinitive, which I missed completely.

Alas, in my more recent post, the four-dot ellipsis was a real, not deliberate error.

But there was a unnoticed deliberate mistake in that post too!

Pia should of course learn to rein in her enthusiasm....

Sioni, thanks for the clarification. That "error" was far too subtle for me--I think it would depend a lot on context and meaning for it to be a real mistake.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Wouldn't one dash be adequate there?

I have no truck with the idea that "split infinitives" are wrong; fact is that what is frequently referred to as "the infinitive" in English is two words, and there's no earthy reason why an adverb shouldn't appear between them - especially since the alternatives are so often unnatural, strongly indicating that the so-called "error" is nothing of the kind.
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Wouldn't one dash be adequate there?

I have no truck with the idea that "split infinitives" are wrong; fact is that what is frequently referred to as "the infinitive" in English is two words, and there's no earthy reason why an adverb shouldn't appear between them - especially since the alternatives are so often unnatural, strongly indicating that the so-called "error" is nothing of the kind.

---

I find the idea of "earthy" reasons amusing but among earthly ones that of making translation difficult is persuasive.

I also prefer as to since.
 

---

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Surely you meant amongst? Otherwise I can find no flaw in your arument.
 

---

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :
 
I think "amongst" is an affectation and that "among", which it seems occurred earlier, is to be preferred.

I also don't like non-temporal "since"; with SS, I would always use "as", or perhaps "because".

Of course, "argument" needs a "g".

[ 26. November 2012, 07:36: Message edited by: Morlader ]
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Since ("He said it again! He said it again!") usage is the only guide to language, I'm going to defend both non-temporal "since" and split infinitives. The translation argument is totally spurious; it's no harder to translate "To boldly go" in to another language with single word infinitives than it is to translate "I boldly go" into a language such as Latin where "I go" would normally be a single word as well.
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Nobody has yet mentioned an intentional spelling mistake in my post of November 25 at 19:06.

In my post later the same day, 22:16, the double dash was not an intentional mistake, but an example of my perenial failure to work out how to do a single dash.

But there was a deliberate punctuation error, also as yet unspotted, in the same post.

I agree with Karl that the split infinitive can be fine, when well used, but not that "usage is the only guide to language."
If it were so, we pedants might as well lay down our blue pencils.
The dreadful misuse of lie/lay in common parlance is enough to contradict Karl's argument.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Missing comma after deliberate.

If common usage is not the guide to language, what is? Some arbitrary set of rules? Why are they correct and not what people who actually speak the language say? We have to accept that lie and lay are becoming synonyms, each spreading into the other's semantic space.

Change and innovation is the very nature of language. When pedants' blue pencils are used to "correct" perfectly normal usages towards an artificial standard, then their pencils do no-one any good.
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Yep, missing comma.

Well, let's not argue.

I know language does and must change, by it's very nature. Sometimes the changes are just a bit too fast!
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Oh dear, an aberrant apostrophe. The possessive "its" does not have one and I would prefer "quickly" to "fast".

I wonder what Karl would prefer as his epitaph:- "He died bravely" or "He bravely died".

[ 26. November 2012, 19:31: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 

---

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 
Karl, I would agree that change and innovation are part of the very nature of language. And, as Cara states, language does and must change by its very nature. The debate, however, must be over when something has reached the point of general acceptence. I agree, Karl, that lie and lay are in the process of becoming synonyms--but not so much because it is agreed that they mean the same thing, but rather because too many people forget the distinction. I know one is active and one passive, but I tend to forget which is which. Rather like Winnie-the-Pooh, who knew that one paw was his right and one the left and, if he knew what one of them was, he could figure out the other--but he could never remember how to start.

That being said, there is value in upholding standards, too. For example, despite its prevalence these days, I will always flinch when somebody writes "loose" when "lose" is meant. There is common and then there is just plain wrong.

Incidentally, I was consoled, Karl, when you wrote "no-one." Earlier, I had intentionally used "noone" fully expecting somebody to call it out as an error. But no one did. Or nobody did. Whatever.

[ETA cross post! I knew I was babbling on too much!]

[ 26. November 2012, 19:32: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hedgehog:


Incidentally, I was consoled, Karl, when you wrote "no-one." Earlier, I had intentionally used "noone" fully expecting somebody to call it out as an error. But no one did. Or nobody did. Whatever.

---

[Pop music tangent]

When Herman's Hermits first toured the United States their frontman, Peter Noone, was greeted at JFK by a PA announcement of "Paging Mister No One. Paging Mister No One".

They weren't that bad. Not quite.

[/Pop music tangent]
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Yes, Hedgehog, "there is common and then there is just plain wrong"! I like this!

And certainly as far as I'm concerned, many contemporary solesicms have by no means reached a point of acceptance.

Very funny about no-one, "noone", and Sioni's story re Mr Noone!!
For this kind of reason I usually use "nobody".
 

---

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :
 
Re 'lie' and 'lay':
I might say "I can lay eggs" but I lie.

On the general point about language change, while I agree languages change, I suggest that languages also deteriorate. Confusing tenses - e.g. reports in the present tense of historical happenings ("Then Queen Victoria dies ...") - confusing similar sounding words because users can't be bothered to differentiate - e.g. lie and lay - and similar adoption of 'popular' idioms all contributes to language decay.

Language conveys meaning, or should. This means adapting one's outpourings to one's intended audience/readers. If your language conveys that you're careless with words and constructions then you are responsible for the consequences, however correct you may be grammatically.

Here endeth the lesson
 

---

Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :
 
Cara, some solecisms may have reached the point of acceptance, but the breakdown of grammatical propriety has not yet reached the stage where the alternate spelling solesicm is acceptable.

I'm missing the deliberate error in Morlader's last post, although his use of dashes and parentheseses is a bit all over the place.

On the split infinitive, I agree that it's hardly the most heinous grammatical crime. I would try to avoid it where possible (it would have been easy, in my sentence, to have put the 'actually' somewhere else, and I would have done if not playing the game), but I wouldn't judge someone harshly if they did split the odd infinitive.

Come to think of it, I don't really judge people on their grammar, spelling, and punctuation at all. I just whince inwardly.
 

---

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :
 
Pia
It doesn't make me wince when I see spelling mistakes, as I would be in permanent wincing mode! I have learned to (almost) ignore these infelicities. Can one wince inwardly?

As several have noted, the alleged rule against splitting infinitives is an invention of over-zealous and under-researched English teachers. But one does need to carefully consider one's readers lest one be thought illiterate by those readers.

I think my use of dashes and parenthises is entirely consistent and logical, though possibly confusing. My deliberate error in that post was to follow a plural subject (all) with a singular verb.

[ 28. November 2012, 09:41: Message edited by: Morlader ]
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
There is no language decay. Distinctions are lost because they are not useful; people do not distinguish between "lie" and "lay" because they find context carries all the distinction required. Were there sufficient cause for ambiguity the distinction would be maintained. Language - real language, that which is actually spoken, is economic. Much the same can also be said of the Shibboleth regarding "less" and "fewer" - somehow we manage with only "more" for the antithesis of both without apparent problems; hence people also manage with "less" for both senses. Ditto "who" and "whom"; one does not find those who decry this particular simplification object to the non-use of "ye", or indeed the "shocking" loss of distinctions between singular and plural since the loss of "thou/thee".

The historic present is a very poor attempt at an example of tense confusion. I'm surprised anyone would attempt to put that forward.

Similarly, the context dictates which side of a verb an adverb belongs.

That aside; I do not know about your use of parenthises, and I'm willing to pass on your use of parentheses.
 

---

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
KLB; semicolons are not always necessary; as you can see. Just over-egging the omelette a trifle!

As regards few and less, the misuse of "less" really grates on me, as it probably does on anyone of my age who was taught grammar by a steely-eyed and elderly nun who entered religion before WW1.

And who thought knickers were immodest, never mind what they clothed.

I did proof read, but thought of something to add. thanks anyway.

[ 28. November 2012, 12:35: Message edited by: jacobsen ]
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Semicolons or not, that wasn't the deliberate error. But, I enjoyed your mixed metaphor.

[ 28. November 2012, 12:39: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 

---

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :
 
KLB
"Language - real language, that which is actually spoken, is economic". There is something amiss with the punctuation here, because the '-' is an opening parenthesis in effect, but there is no matching closing '-'.
More fundamentally, I can't discern the meaning of 'is economic'. If you meant 'is economical' I would say "tell that to politicians and preachers". If you really meant 'is economic' not everyone talks about pounds/dollars/ deficts/profits etc. all the time.

Languages do decay. I am a Cornish language bard and I know that the revived Cornish language is necessarily based on the grammar, syntax and, mainly, vocabulary of the language as written in extant texts before decay set in with loss of tenses and constructions in Late Cornish and 'polution' by English words. Late Cornish speakers have to learn in English because Late Cornish, due to decay, is incapable.

I shall not rebut your 'who'/'fewer'/'thou' diatribe, though I do not accept it.

Have a nice day.

ETA: Perhaps you would like to give us a better example of tense confusion?

[ 28. November 2012, 13:54: Message edited by: Morlader ]
 

---

Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :
 
'Thee' and 'thou' are still in full use around these parts, though I imagine they're not long for this twenty-first century world.

These parts are not my parts, though. As a proud Cornishwoman, albeit in up-country exile, I was interested in Morlader's comments about pollution and decay in Cornish.

[ 28. November 2012, 15:01: Message edited by: Pia ]
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Comparing the death-throes of a language in terminal decline, quite possibly no longer the first language of anyone and certainly not still the language of a literary tradition, with ebb and flow within English is inappropriate, and Morlader knows it. Pollution is not decay; English was massively "polluted" by French after 1066, and Old Norse in the centuries before it, but somehow remains a perfectly good language. However, I am well aware that two revived Cornish speakers will have at least three virulently and violently disagreeing opinions, so perhaps I should suggest Morlader shut him/herself up in a room with a couple of opinion pieces on the SWF and then await news that they've beaten themselves up


Nor is dialectal survival of thee and thou relevant; the vast majority of English speakers get on perfectly well without them, despite the fact that the language mavens' fellow travellers of 500 years ago doubtless complained of ambiguity and language decay.

La plus qui'l change

[ 28. November 2012, 15:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 

---

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
Actually I find it debatable that "you" is always clearly either singular or plural from the conext. It has happened ocasionally that I, or someone else, has asked, "Do you mean you plural, or you singular?". In fact it seems to me that English is evolving back again (revolving?) under the pressure. Depending on which part of the world you are in you will often hear people say things like "y'all", "youse", "you guys". These are effectively becoming second person plural pronouns. It would be fascinating to cryogenically freeze myself for a couple of hundred years and see which way the language developes.

And congratulations to Pia on making shipmate status! Woohoo! You'd still be an apprentice this time next year if it weren't for this thread.

Karl, stick to English. Plus, where it is used as a noun, is masculine. In this context it is used without the article, and you've put the apostrophe in th wrong place in qu'il, which is the wrong word in any case, assuming you meant plus ça change.
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Interesting idea, Jonah, to cryogenically freeze yourself to see how the language develops. This would probably be one of the rarer reasons for doing that!

Reminds me of a wonderful obscure book I read as a teenager: Brother Petroc's Return by one S.M.C (Sister Mary Catherine, apparently).

Good grief! I've just found out other people have actually heard of it, mention it on Goodreads, and are selling it on Amazon!

His abscense was a longer than 200 years, though, and no freezing was involved.
 

---

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Absence, I think,dear one. but generally speaking, I find it quite a challenge to limit myself to one mistake. Proof reading was never one of my talents. Sorry, hosts.
 

---

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
Yes, I see that you have blessed us with multiple punctuation errors. I don't suppose this means you lack punctuality though.
Generally speaking commas are followed by spaces and full stops (periods If you prefer) are followed by an initial capital.

I can't really complain about about multiple errors myself though, since I seem to be more prone to them than most. I just noticed that the extra e in develope seems to have deleted itself from th further down my previous post. I had another error in my last post which I am surprised that cara, of all people, did not pick me up on (or should that be "up on which cara did not pick me?).

Now that I have the attention of a plethora of pedants (I believe that is the correct collective noun), can I ask whether you say "I leapt" (rhyming with slept) or I leaped? Dreamt or dreamed? Learnt or learned, burnt or burned. I'm trying to determine if there is a pond or antipodean factor involved, or maybe it was simply a local version I grew up with without realising at the time.

OK, this post is long enough to have plenty of unforced errors. I was going to add a grocer's apostrophe in "commas" but decided I didn't need to.

JtW
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Ah jacobsen chérie, how nice of you to make such a charming allusion on my name!

I too have been making unintentional errors as well as the intentional ones, while trying hard not to do so! Preview post is my friend...

Jonah, do you refer to my having missed your misspelling of context? I hope that's what you meant, not the split infinitive in "to cryogenically freeze". I thought we'd more or less agreed that split infinitives didn't count as errors?
 

---

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Jonah me deario, I think that learnt, learned, etc are all acceptable uses, though one may possible have started life as a verb e.g. I leaped, and the other as a past participle e.g. I have leapt. Learned could be a verb and an adjective. The joys of our common language....
 

---

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
Cara, cariad, yes indeed, "conext" was a mere typo. And I am in full agreement on the spilt infinitives being only a matter of style - just like starting a sentence with a conjunction really. I had another error in mind. This is starting to go a long way back now, but maybe this will be a clue:

quote:

---

(Cara wrote)
Nobody has yet mentioned an intentional spelling mistake in my post of November 25 at 19:06.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
Aha, Jonah! This:
" It has happened ocasionally that I, or someone else, has asked"....

I'm afraid, though, that before following up on your clue (because I'd forgotten myself what it refered to) I went back and read your post again. And though I went right past "ocasionally", I thought your subtle, sneaky mistake was "I, or someone else, has asked...." Because of course it would be "I have asked," but someone else "has asked," yet you were making "has" do double duty....

I think "leapt", "learnt", etc are more common in the UK than in the USA.

Yes, in my latest post it should have been allusion to. And in jacobsen's (I did feel chéri e was right) it should be one may possibly , methinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
And congratulations to Pia on making shipmate status! Woohoo! You'd still be an apprentice this time next year if it weren't for this thread.

---

Yay! I feel like I've really made it! And, as you say, Jonah, largely thanks to this thread!

No-one has yet picked up the intentional error in my last post (28/11/12, at 16.00), which was now so long ago that I may as well point it out. We may talk about something that happened during the twenty-first century, but when used as an adjective (this twenty-first-century world) the number and 'century' should be hyphenated.

Cara, carissima, additional spaces before punctuation marks are really unecessary.
 

---

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
Well I don't think I would ever have spotted that missing hyphen there Pia. I do know, however, that you need a double n in unnecessary. Unless you really are talking about something which isn't ecessary. Then again, since ecessary is'nt a word I suppose nothing is ecessary, which means everything is unecessary. I think I need more coffee, this is too confusing for this time of day.

JtW
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Well, Pia, Im afraid my putting the spaces around the punctuation marks, if a mistake, was not an intentional one.

The intentional one was another spelling error.
 

---

Posted by Pia (# 17277) on :
 
Aha! Referred, not refered, of course!

And I'm, not Im in your last post.

JtW... thanks for making me

How do we feel about a full-stop or not after 'etc' (spotted without in a post further upstream). I was taught that you need the full-stop if the abbreviation doesn't end with the same letter as the full word, but that no full-stop is needed if the abbreviation does end with the same letter. Hence: etc. (with full-stop, because et cetera ends with an 'a' not a 'c'), but Mr (without full-stop, because Mister ends with an 'r'). The instance in which I most often use this is with the abbreviation for 'volume(s)': hence 'vol. I', but 'vols II & III'.

I should really get a life, shouldn't I?
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Well I don't think I would ever have spotted that missing hyphen there Pia. I do know, however, that you need a double n in unnecessary. Unless you really are talking about something which isn't ecessary. Then again, since ecessary is'nt a word I suppose nothing is ecessary, which means everything is unecessary. I think I need more coffee, this is too confusing for this time of day.

JtW

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morlader:
Cara
I agree that a comma after "meanwhile" in KlBs post would be good.
<There is no possessive apostrophy. - error1> <KLB would've been better. - error2>
And perhaps on each side of "however" too.
<This sentence has no active verb. - error3> <There should be a comma before 'too'. - error4>

Spelling of "affirmed" in your post is awry. And I think it should be "confirmed" too.
<IMO 'affirming' is what someone does in court etc. instead swearing an oath. Scientists declaring results are confirming other scientists work or a theory. They are not taking an oath. - not an error.>


I count 4 intentional errors in this post.

---

The missing space after a comma is the only error I see in jacobsen's post, too.

[ 02. December 2012, 16:02: Message edited by: Morlader ]
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
Ah OK Morlader, so I got two of your errors. But I missed the incomplete sentence (only I don't consider this an error per se but rather a stylistic issue) and the missing comma before "too." This latter didn't seem much of an error to me, either, but I guess a comma is slightly preferable.

At least you weren't as sneaky as jacobsen and I thought you might be!

There's no (intentional!) error in this post, because there's one as yet unmentioned in my last.
 

---

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :
 
Cara
2 Dec 0715 Yes, you are missing something.

To a pedant, such as you and me, differing styles are no excuse. A point is either right or it is wrong.

[ 03. December 2012, 20:58: Message edited by: Morlader ]
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
I know what you mean, Morlader, and I bow to nobody in pedantry; yet I feel some things are style choices that can be forgiven because they work, and others are just plane wrong.

it's hard to explain the difference!

If there's an error in your last, it escapes me.
 

---

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
and others are just plane wrong.

it's hard to explain the difference!

If there's an error in your last, it escapes me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cara:
Sorry to double post, but I now see that hedgehog is certainly referring to the recent post of 5 December 20:24, and is claiming that it contains two errors, neither of them in the 1-2-3 list appearing there.

As I said, one of the errors is inadvertant , that's the "blatant" one. The other is said to be debatable.

All I can think of is that it may not be quite right to say " On Morlader's post...." "In re" or "regarding" or "as far as Morlader's post goes..."
??

[no intentional errors in this post.]

---

quote:

---

On Morlader's post, I would quibble about the placement of "either" in the phrase: "A point is either right or it is wrong."

---

I was thinking that it was incorrect to describe as a "phrase" what is clearly a sentence.

[No intentional errors in this post. Doesn't mean that there are none...]
 

---

Posted by Morlader (# 16040) on :
 
Hedgehog on 05 Dec
Well done; the placing of 'either' was indeed wrong. I intended your (3). Like Cara, I can't see another error before your 1, 2, 3, though I tend to think "On Morlader's post" is a bit clumsy.

JtW
''O" making a vocative should be capitalised and "don't" in your line three should have an apostrophe. [Incidentally, no-one commented on my misspelling 'apostrophy' in an earlier post.]

Also no-one commented on my 03 Dec post concerning To a pedant, such as you and me, differing styles are no excuse. There is a mistake in the number. It should be EITHER
(1) To pedants, such as you and me, OR
(2) To a pedant, such as you or me,
I confess I was hoping someone would 'correct' "me" to "I", but no takers

Cara 0856 today
Your alleged sentence/paragraph starting "Which" is a dependent clause which seemingly has nothing and nobody to depend on.

I must've made at least one error in this long post.
 

---

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :
 
This is getting more and more complex and nested-Russian-dolls-ish!

Hedgehog, I think you're right, it was incorrect to call a full sentence "a phrase"; but hardly noticeable, and very sneaky!

O subtle Morlader, yes, I see now why that "To a pedant" bit sounded strange.

You're right that my "sentence" starting "Which..." (in that post of 6 December 8:56) is, strictly speaking, an example of bad syntax.....but my intentional error was in misspelling
beginning .

Speaking of misspelling, I don't know how we let you get away with "apostrophy".

JtW, I agree with Morlader's asessment of your errors.

Finally, the only error I see in Morader's latest "long post" is in the sentence beginning "incidentally": shouldn't the full stop be AFTER the closed bracket, because the whole sentence contains only the material inside the brackets?
 

---

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :
 
Here ya go, Hull. The ultimate in "burn your eyes out" awful pedantry. The nuclear bomb of threads.

Wait. There's one more . . .


 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
With this title, this one can stay.
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
I hate people who confuse ' with ".

One day I shall decimate them. Decimate them all!
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0