|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 111 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 25 of 111:
| 
Jun 29 16:52 UTC 2003 |
I wonder how that URL got mangled. I just pasted it in from my
browser's location window. Thanks for the correction.
|
jep
|
|
response 26 of 111:
|
Jun 30 12:49 UTC 2003 |
re resp:19: You're using the apostrophe to alert your reader to the
upcoming "s", which is not necessary.
But it doesn't matter. If someone writes of using too many Ps or P's,
it conveys the same information.
People are too uptight about aged rules of grammar. Just be
appreciative when people can make themselves understood -- it's hard
enough to do that for too many people. Anyway, the language is going
to change and evolve. So are rules of spelling, grammar and
punctuation.
Drew in resp:16 provides a great example of when to "break" the rules
as they've been taught to you. If you can make a sentence more clear,
then that should trump a formal rule, every time and without
hesitation.
|
gregb
|
|
response 27 of 111:
|
Jun 30 15:09 UTC 2003 |
Re. 11: Actually, I've seen it done both ways in various
publications. Admittedly, I'm not sure which usage is correct.
|
gull
|
|
response 28 of 111:
|
Jun 30 15:45 UTC 2003 |
Services on my servers tend to be pretty quiet about their version
numbers. I suppose it could be argued that having my Exim mail server
return, say, some old version of Sendmail would be better than having it
just give a bare minimum connection banner, but given the number of
sites around that blatently advertise that they're running a buggy
version of sendmail I figure most script kiddies will just move on to
easier targets.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 29 of 111:
|
Jun 30 16:13 UTC 2003 |
I don't see any merit in the argument in #16: "Dos and don't" can't be
confused with DOS, since DOS is a capitalized acronym, and also context
would make the distinction clear.
I favor strong adherence to grammatical rules so that language does
not evolve too fast. jep misses this point in #26: you are more easily
*misunderstood* if you evolve the languaage on the ground "language
evolves". I would agree with the desire for clarity, but I do not know
of any grammatical rule violations that improve clarity. Examples, please?
|
remmers
|
|
response 30 of 111:
|
Jun 30 16:17 UTC 2003 |
Re #26: Best to use an apostrophe to pluralize letters, I think. An
added "s" without the apostrophe tends to make things pretty ambiguous and
hard-to-read. Consider:
Always dot your is and cross your ts. (confusing, looks weird)
Always dot your i's and cross your t's. (much clearer)
The sentence contains several us. (huh?)
The sentence contains several u's. (oh...)
|
scott
|
|
response 31 of 111:
|
Jun 30 17:26 UTC 2003 |
I suspect jep's tolerance of grammatic drift will dry up in a few years when
his then-teenage sons start spouting slang every other word.
|
mdw
|
|
response 32 of 111:
|
Jun 30 17:32 UTC 2003 |
What, you don't think jep will be sending his kids out with directions
to study and capture the latest examples of emerging slang in the wild
so he can publish his latest book, "Even more English Slang"?
|
slynne
|
|
response 33 of 111:
|
Jun 30 17:44 UTC 2003 |
I figure that if someone says something to me and I understand it, then
the language has served its purpose. I also think that in informal
settings it is perfectly acceptable to make grammatical errors either
verbally or when writing. It is also true that making typos and
spelling words wrong does say a lot about a person or what they are
thinking or feeling. If a person who usually doesnt make errors
suddenly starts, one has to wonder. If a person *always* has bad
grammar, that says something about them too.
Still, the people who have the nerve to correct other people's grammar
in discussions that are not about grammar bug me more than the original
grammar error.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 34 of 111:
|
Jun 30 19:05 UTC 2003 |
(It should be "If a person *that* usually doesn't......" /bug)
|
slynne
|
|
response 35 of 111:
|
Jun 30 19:52 UTC 2003 |
Actually it is "If a person, who usually doesnt make errors, suddenly
starts..."
|
jep
|
|
response 36 of 111:
|
Jun 30 20:10 UTC 2003 |
I've already been through language assaults. When my older boy was in
2nd grade, he'd actually catch himself saying something normal, then
change it to sound like his friends. For example, "I prefer chocolate
ice ... oops, I mean, I'm *like* chocolate ice cream."
It grated on me. I'll be going through it again soon, I suppose, and
it'll grate on me all over again. Parenting is the process of being
grated on until you can be sprinkled like cheese. (Hmm, that doesn't
mean anything, does it?)
|
slynne
|
|
response 37 of 111:
|
Jun 30 20:11 UTC 2003 |
And if anyone wants to correct me on that one, they had better plan on
letting me know *why* it is incorrect. I mean, this *is* a discussion
about grammar, is it not?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 38 of 111:
|
Jun 30 23:44 UTC 2003 |
Re #35: both are correct. You are using the non-restrictive or
non-defining relative pronoun who, and I used the restrictive or defining
relative pronoun that. Notice the necessity of your using a comma, while
what I wrote never uses a comma.
The restrictive is somewhat better, as "...a person, who usually doesn't
make errors..." can imply that *every* "a person" usually doesn't make
errors, which is untrue. However if it were specific, say "...Mr.
Dumbledore, who usually doesn't make errors...", and we know who Mr.
Dumbledore is, then it is OK.
|
slynne
|
|
response 39 of 111:
|
Jul 1 02:14 UTC 2003 |
Thank you, Rane. That was very informative.
|
other
|
|
response 40 of 111:
|
Jul 1 05:30 UTC 2003 |
"...for all intensive purposes..." WRONG!
"...for all intents and purposes..." RIGHT!
|
jor
|
|
response 41 of 111:
|
Jul 1 07:56 UTC 2003 |
bzzt.
the second is a time worn phrase, I think
from legalese.
that doesn't make the first wrong, though I agree
some people probably are mangling the second.
reminds me of stuff I've seen in the AA News:
"on tenderhooks" for 'on tenterhooks'
"searching for armour" for "searching for amour'
|
other
|
|
response 42 of 111:
|
Jul 1 11:50 UTC 2003 |
The former may make sense in certain contexts, but it is NOT the correct
wording of that particular idiomatic phrase.
|
jor
|
|
response 43 of 111:
|
Jul 1 17:58 UTC 2003 |
You can't argue with me. I'm agreeing with you.
from http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtoalli.html
"to all intents and purposes"
This cliche (meaning "practically") is a shortening of the legal
phrase "to all intents, constructions, and purposes" (found in an
act adopted under Henry VIII in 1547). The corruption "for all
intensive purposes" is frequently reported.
|
bru
|
|
response 44 of 111:
|
Jul 1 21:35 UTC 2003 |
I have never heard "to all intansive purpose", ANYWHERE!
|
katie
|
|
response 45 of 111:
|
Jul 1 21:47 UTC 2003 |
An editorial in the AA News last week referred to "certified pubic
accountants."
|
katie
|
|
response 46 of 111:
|
Jul 1 21:47 UTC 2003 |
(eewww.)
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 47 of 111:
|
Jul 1 23:42 UTC 2003 |
resp:44 I've never heard of "to all intansive purpose," either. Maybe
we should respell that?
|
russ
|
|
response 48 of 111:
|
Jul 2 02:08 UTC 2003 |
I've seen peddlers selling ID cards identifying the bearer as a
"CERTIFIED PUBIC ASSASSIN". Apparently some pubes deserve to die.
|
other
|
|
response 49 of 111:
|
Jul 2 05:10 UTC 2003 |
I received a (supposed) humor email containing the phrase "for all
intensive purposes" in a context which suggested that the author was not
aware of the correct phrase.
|