Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What it is 'n' what it ain't.  (Read 71280 times)
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 18, 2013, 04:56:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Ah. So, looking back, when you wrote that "in your sentence "Now it's sunk", the verb is is and sunk is an adjective not a verb" you are referring to the most likely reading of RSL's actual sentence rather than asserting that "it's" in the phrase "it's sunk" is correct only as a contraction of "it is" and would be wrong as a contraction of "it has"?

Ok, ok, I hear the silent screaming. I'll go away now.
Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2013, 04:58:36 AM »
ReplyReply

But Rob,

The split infinitive is a heap of horse poop.  It was a somewhat foolhardy attempt by linguistic boffins to impart some classical pretentiousness to English, borrowed from Latin.

And, of course, it must be remembered that even the Romans hardly spoke Latin.

Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6562



WWW
« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2013, 06:17:17 AM »
ReplyReply

In your sentence "Yesterday it sank", sankis a verb.  In your sentence "Now it's sunk", the verb is is and sunk is an adjective not a verb.  I am an English teacher now and I know the difference.  Grin

You're right of course, Bryan. "Haste makes waste" (and confusion). But the verb "is" isn't there in "now it's sunk." The "s" stands for "has," not "is." The error was to add the word "now." Shouldn't have stuck that in.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #43 on: February 18, 2013, 09:22:36 AM »
ReplyReply

But Rob,

The split infinitive is a heap of horse poop.  It was a somewhat foolhardy attempt by linguistic boffins to impart some classical pretentiousness to English, borrowed from Latin.

And, of course, it must be remembered that even the Romans hardly spoke Latin.





Hmmm.... can't say that I agree about it being pretension, because the effect is to create complicated verbs out of things that are really only part verb, though I do agree about the Romans. They hardly spoke at all: settled it all with swords, nets and tridents stolen off statues in public squares.

There's a statue at Paisley Cross (not Park - what was Prince's connection or obsession with the town?), down a level to where the public loos are/used to be, that always caught my eye: a buxom lady who always looked in need of a good bra. Especially when it snowed. Unlike the Romans of the era, I would have added to her wardrobe rather than stolen from it. In summer, she could have reverted to topless and all would have been well.

Rob C
Logged

Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 505


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 18, 2013, 12:59:06 PM »
ReplyReply

There are no (and never have been) rules about splitting infinitives. The placement of the adverb before, in the middle of, or after the infinitive should only be guided by the meaning that you are trying to convey. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. The correct version is the version that correctly conveys the meaning that you mean to convey.

I currently make my living copy-editing scientific journals. This does not make me an expert on grammar or spelling, but it does make me a near-expert on using style guides. There are lots of them, and the one thing they have in common is that they contradict each other all the time. When people try to assert that their rules of grammar or spelling are correct and that others are wrong, well, I just laugh out loud. There are common basic rules of course, but I am talking about the more subtle uses of language, the ones all debates are about.

Spelling and rules of grammar change all the time, especially spelling. The progression of compound words into hyphenated forms, and later into combined nonhyphenated versions is commonplace and occurs very quickly. It's not wrong, it's not even unusual. The conventions that happen to be popular at the time that you learn them are no more correct than earlier or later ones. Get used to it.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2013, 02:20:39 PM by Robert Roaldi » Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 18, 2013, 02:13:32 PM »
ReplyReply

There are no (and never have been) rules about splitting infinitives. The placement of the adverb before, in the middle of, or after the infinitive should only be guided by the meaning that you are trying to convey. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. The correct version is the version that correctly conveys the meaning that you mean to convey.

I currently make my living copy-editing scientific journals. This does not make me an expert on grammar or spelling, but it does make me a near-expert on using style guides. There are lots of them, and the one thing they have in common is that they contradict each other all the time. When people try to assert that their rules of grammar or spelling are correct and that others are wrong, well, I just laugh out loud. There are common basic rules of course, but I am talking about the more subtle uses of language, the ones all debates are about.

Spelling and rules of grammar change all the time, especially spelling. The progression of compound words into hyphenated forms, and later into combined hyphenated versions is commonplace and occurs very quickly. It's not wrong, it's not even unusual. The conventions that happen to be popular at the time that you learn them are no more correct than earlier or later ones. Get used to it.

I remember my first day in an Advanced Grammar class my last year at University, the professor told us that most of the rules of grammar were more suggestions than actual rules. We spent the rest of the semester learning how to correctly "break the rules".   There are almost always exceptions to the exception....
Logged

Colorwave
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1007


WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 18, 2013, 02:33:26 PM »
ReplyReply

You kids get off my lawn!

LOL (kid's speak for Ridere Clara Voce)

Best of luck trying to nail Silly Putty (language) to the wall.  Robert and Bryan capture the concept quite succinctly and accurately.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2013, 02:35:06 PM by Colorwave » Logged

kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 19, 2013, 12:43:10 AM »
ReplyReply

The conventions that happen to be popular at the time that you learn them are no more correct than earlier or later ones. Get used to it.
Absolutely. However, it is useful to be aware of the prevailing conventions and how they have changed. "Errors of grammar" may be errors of rhetoric. Rob, and an unknown (to me) number of people like him may be distracted from what you are trying to say if they don't share your conventions. Spelling is mutable too but I find it very hard to seriously attend to anything written by someone who can't spell, despite knowing very well that Shakespeare couldn't spell.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #48 on: February 19, 2013, 04:07:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Absolutely. However, it is useful to be aware of the prevailing conventions and how they have changed. "Errors of grammar" may be errors of rhetoric. Rob, and an unknown (to me) number of people like him may be distracted from what you are trying to say if they don't share your conventions. Spelling is mutable too but I find it very hard to seriously attend to anything written by someone who can't spell, despite knowing very well that Shakespeare couldn't spell.




You're doing this for spite, aren't you?

;-)

Rob C


Regarding poor spelling: I could forgive that far more easily than bad grammar. Spelling comes into a rather different set of recognition/memory areas. Under bad spelling I don't place the misuse of words such as there and their; I don't think those types of error have much to do with anything other than the lack of reading books or, perhaps disadvantages of childhood education. And the latter doesn't necessarily deserve to be placed on the shoulders of systems or parents: kids contribute (or don't!) a hell of a lot to their own future problems or success.

Rob C
« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 04:11:43 AM by Rob C » Logged

Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 521


WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 19, 2013, 06:27:29 AM »
ReplyReply




You're doing this for spite, aren't you?

;-)

Rob C


Regarding poor spelling: I could forgive that far more easily than bad grammar. Spelling comes into a rather different set of recognition/memory areas. Under bad spelling I don't place the misuse of words such as there and their; I don't think those types of error have much to do with anything other than the lack of reading books or, perhaps disadvantages of childhood education. And the latter doesn't necessarily deserve to be placed on the shoulders of systems or parents: kids contribute (or don't!) a hell of a lot to their own future problems or success.

Rob C

I am glad that you specified the reading of books and not newspapers and websites....especially newspapers.  I find it inexcusable (not unexcusable) for a newspaper to contain misspelled words.  But, I suppose that the misuse of words may be a bigger problem than misspelled words.  There is too much reliance on computers to check the spelling instead of actually proofreading a text. 
Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #50 on: February 19, 2013, 11:19:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Has the proof-reader's position gone the way of the Linotype Operator's pivotal task?

Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #51 on: February 19, 2013, 11:39:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that pretty much everything is going home to meet the dodo.

If this 'progress' keeps up, soon there won't be any work for humans, and then who's going to buy what with what? Will anyone be left to make it matter?

I saw today on the news that parts of the UK have decided to create electrical recharging points for a new generation of electriclly powered automobiles. It's going to be less expensive then petrol. Really? My last electricity bill here in Mallorca was 314.14 for 1,547 Kws. I use it only for heating the water for one brief shower a day, making tea and coffee, the electric blanket, one sitting room heater, and cooking two meals at the weekend. As it is, the power coming into the house is way down from what it should be and they constantly try to get you to cut consumption. Where would electrical cars drive the money and supply equation?

Effin' crazy: the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing!

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad