| Author |
Message |
TakenEvent
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"Harvey Van Sickle" <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9706DBF2CDC95whhvans@80.5.182.99...
| Quote: | On 06 Nov 2005, TakenEvent wrote
I thought the British routinely placed punctuation outside of
quotation marks. Not so for dialogue and quotes, huh?
Dialogue is a special case, but for quotes it depends whether the
punctuation belongs to the quote or to the sentence which contains
the quote.
It differs primarily with less strong punctuation than question
marks. I believe -- Bob and others can correct me if I'm wrong --
that standard American punctuation could produce:
We will discuss American English "as she is spoke."
Whereas BrEng would see:
We will discuss American English "as she is spoke".
|
You're right. But I prefer the latter. It just looks cleaner.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TakenEvent
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"Robert Bannister" <robban@it.net.au> wrote in message
news:3t7klfFrlseaU3@individual.net...
| Quote: | TakenEvent wrote:
"Arne H. Wilstrup" <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> wrote in message
news:436e25cb$0$84023$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
"TakenEvent" <lightbulbsnickety@chartermi.net> skrev i en
meddelelse news:b7pbf.9848$7s1.4632@fe04.lga...
"Arne H. Wilstrup" <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> wrote in
message
news:436de8bb$0$84029$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
You can either say "the family is" or "the family are"
according to how you consider the familiy: as a group of
people or as individual members of the group.
"Family" is singular.
The whole family is going to be there.
Many families are going to be there.
I must say that I strongly disagree - acording to my grammar
and what I have been told in this group "family" can both be
considered as a group and as individuals. My grammar says
here:
"Collective nouns are countable nouns like administration,
army, audience, class, committee, company,crew, family,
firm, government, group, jury, management, party,press,
public,staff and team. The singular form of these nouns
refers to a group of people. When collective nouns in the
singular functions as subject, they can be accompanied
either by
A. a singular verb, a personal pronoun or determiner like it
and its and the relative pronoun which, which all emphaxize
the impersonal unit referred to by the noun:
"My company sells farm machinery. The committee controls
council spending. Her family has been tracked back to
1300... etc"
B. by a plural verb, personal pronouns and determiners like
they, them, their(s) and relatives like who, whom, which al
emphasize the individuals referred to by the noun:
"The company are sending me on a management course".
The company is sending. "Company," in this case, is not necessarily a
collective noun.
A group of us are going up to London for the day.
Said, but usually as "A group of us'r goin'..." This is because the
sentence is referencing the behavior of individuals. If, as an
established
group, 10 people collectively planned to go to London together, you
might
want to consider saying "The group is going..."
My family are all early risers.
The preceding sentence doesn't illustrate your point. It's understood
that
you're talking about the numerous people each being early risers -- i.e.
"The members of my family are all early risers." It isn't technically
correct to say "The members of my family is all early risers." People
do
it, but they sound awful. You could say, "My family is early to rise."
The Government are planning new tax increases.
It are?
You must be American. The above examples are completely correct in
rest-of-the-world English. This does not mean that you are wrong or that
we are wrong: just different, but you are attempting to lay down the law
in matters out of your jurisdiction.
|
Possibly, but the original post didn't specify, and by the time the poster
did, it was too late. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TakenEvent
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
"Jeffrey Turner" <jturner@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:11mul8ngjhhh7c6@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
On 6 Nov 2005 10:43:22 -0800, "nancy13g" <nancy13g@verizon.net> wrote:
the Omrud wrote:
Arne H. Wilstrup <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> spake thusly:
I once won a bet with an Englishman who claimed that you
could not say "I were" - I said that you could use it in the
subjunctive, but he did not agree.
I had to prove it right by showing him the song: If you were
the only girl in the world and I were the only boy"
It's also perfectly normal Northern English dialect.
It's also perfectly normal Broadway musical dialect: "If I were a rich
man ..."
"If I was a carpenter, and you were a lady" sums up the distinction
nicely. In other words, I *could* be a carpenter, but a lady, as the
word is used in the song, is born, not made. (Ha-ha, but seriously.)
Do you mean to imply that one could write, "If I was a carpenter
and you was a plumber"?
|
One could; and at least one did.
Roger Miller wrote:
If I was a bird
And you was a fish
What would we do?
I guess we'd wish
For reincarnation
Reincarnation
Wouldn't it be
A sensation
To come back to
Like reincarnation.
If I was a tree
And you was a flower
What would we do?
I guess we'd wait
For the power
Of reincarnation
Reincarnation
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:37 pm
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:10 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net>
wrought:
| Quote: | On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:02:27 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup"
detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> wrote:
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:MPG.1dd85fb5e58d191398a207@news.ntlworld.com...
"I were feeling a bit ill yesterday."
subjunctive?
No, joking. Some British people, not David the O, *do* say such
things, hence the joke.
|
No joke, particularly. David the O doesn't say it because he were born
in Stawk or somewur, a think. Not reoond ere any rawd.
And nobody has yet cited an honourable AUE usage of "I/he were":
"WIWAL".
As David said, it's nobbut a standard feature of Northern English
(particularly Lancashire and Yorkshire) dialects.
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:53 pm
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
Ross Howard <gguiri@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:10 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net
wrought:
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:02:27 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup"
detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> wrote:
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:MPG.1dd85fb5e58d191398a207@news.ntlworld.com...
"I were feeling a bit ill yesterday."
subjunctive?
No, joking. Some British people, not David the O, *do* say such
things, hence the joke.
No joke, particularly. David the O doesn't say it because he were born
in Stawk or somewur, a think. Not reoond ere any rawd.
|
Happen I were brought by the Stawk, but it weren't in Stoke, which
would have ben the frozen North in my childhood, if I had ever heard
of the place. No, it were Warwickshire where I were hatched.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:14 pm
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:10 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:33:32 -0500, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote:
"And" joins. "Or" separates. Their grammar
Oy! (The possibility of Oying the Liebs comes around once in a
millennium or two, so an opportunity must not be missed.)
differs accordingly. You
cannot analogize from one to the other.
|
My old friend Liebs isn't talking with me these days after my
questioning his explanation on how to treat rhetorical questions. I'd
have thought him a bigger man.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:14 pm
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 08:22:24 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
<jturner@localnet.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
On 6 Nov 2005 10:43:22 -0800, "nancy13g" <nancy13g@verizon.net> wrote:
the Omrud wrote:
Arne H. Wilstrup <detfaarduejatvide@invalid.dk> spake thusly:
I once won a bet with an Englishman who claimed that you
could not say "I were" - I said that you could use it in the
subjunctive, but he did not agree.
I had to prove it right by showing him the song: If you were
the only girl in the world and I were the only boy"
It's also perfectly normal Northern English dialect.
It's also perfectly normal Broadway musical dialect: "If I were a rich
man ..."
"If I was a carpenter, and you were a lady" sums up the distinction
nicely. In other words, I *could* be a carpenter, but a lady, as the
word is used in the song, is born, not made. (Ha-ha, but seriously.)
Do you mean to imply that one could write, "If I was a carpenter
and you was a plumber"?
|
I screwed up with my example, but I hope I made my point.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:49 pm
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:14:28 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:10 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:33:32 -0500, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote:
"And" joins. "Or" separates. Their grammar
Oy! (The possibility of Oying the Liebs comes around once in a
millennium or two, so an opportunity must not be missed.)
differs accordingly. You
cannot analogize from one to the other.
My old friend Liebs isn't talking with me these days after my
questioning his explanation on how to treat rhetorical questions. I'd
have thought him a bigger man.
|
But apparently not.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:55 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:14:28 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net
wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:10 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:33:32 -0500, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote:
"And" joins. "Or" separates. Their grammar
Oy! (The possibility of Oying the Liebs comes around once in a
millennium or two, so an opportunity must not be missed.)
differs accordingly. You
cannot analogize from one to the other.
My old friend Liebs isn't talking with me these days after my
questioning his explanation on how to treat rhetorical questions. I'd
have thought him a bigger man.
But apparently not.
|
Hey, Charles, when you're right you're right. I haven't figured out
why, in this particular instance, you're right and I'm wrong -- but
that must be the case, because no one has risen to my defense, not
even me. So I concede the point, whatever it is, on general
principles. If you'd care to explain my error, perhaps I can benefit
even more from your keen eye.
And I assure you that your truly astounding bullheadedness about
rhetorical questions has not diminished my admiration and affection
for you by even half a whit.
--
The Liebs
Always willing to learn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:59 pm
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:55:17 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:14:28 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net
wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:10 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:33:32 -0500, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote:
"And" joins. "Or" separates. Their grammar
Oy! (The possibility of Oying the Liebs comes around once in a
millennium or two, so an opportunity must not be missed.)
differs accordingly. You
cannot analogize from one to the other.
My old friend Liebs isn't talking with me these days after my
questioning his explanation on how to treat rhetorical questions.
.... |
| Quote: | Hey, Charles, when you're right you're right. I haven't figured out
why, in this particular instance, you're right and I'm wrong -- but
that must be the case, because no one has risen to my defense, not
even me. So I concede the point, whatever it is, on general
principles.
|
I wasn't out to win a battle, but thanks for that concession. I wasn't
being fussy on detail (I'm almost never that) or argumentative this
time: I simply didn't understand several of the things you wrote, even
when repeated.
| Quote: | If you'd care to explain my error, perhaps I can benefit
even more from your keen eye.
|
OK, I deserved that. I have made the claim I'm good at reading between
the lines of AUE posts and not bad at interpreting what seems to some
as gobbledegook, not that what you said in the following exchange even
approached that, yet this time I appear to have failed.
From my post in response to one of yours:
You:
| Quote: | I've repeatedly said that In my view the
question mark is syntactical and is used to indicate that what
precedes it is a question in form, whether rhetorical or not.
|
Me, and so on for the rest:
Big fan of yours that I am, I hate to have to say that the meaning of
that sentence is anything but clear. What does "the question mark is
syntactical" supposed to mean? Syntax, as I understand it, involves
words, not punctuation.
| Quote: | To
indicate that a question is rhetorical, you don't omit the question
mark and assume that punctuation will do the trick.
|
This sentence also leaves me cold. What punctuation if the question
mark is omitted?
| Quote: | You leave the
question mark in place, as it should be, and you rely on the words you
use -- the writing -- to convey that the question is rhetorical.
|
OK. That's your view and mine, clearly and succinctly put. The rest,
IMHO, added confusion factors.
-- End of old stuff --
| Quote: | And I assure you that your truly astounding bullheadedness about
rhetorical questions has not diminished my admiration and affection
for you by even half a whit.
|
Happy as I am to hear that, I don't think I've been half as bullheaded
as on other occasion when you *have* responded!
I'm still confused about your use of "syntax", but I'm no John Lawler
by a long shot. Did I have its meaning wrong or did you?
My other difficulties had only to do with your wording here and there,
but if we can't discuss such things in AUE, where can we? In the real
world, I'd get my lights punched out if I attempted to hold some of
the conversations that pop up here.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:36 am
Post subject: Re: a "group question" |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
[snip entertaining discussion of various matters]
| Quote: | My other difficulties had only to do with your wording here and there,
but if we can't discuss such things in AUE, where can we? In the real
world, I'd get my lights punched out if I attempted to hold some of
the conversations that pop up here.
|
I can't speak for anyone else, but I find them entertaining. See
bracketed words above.
Now, when you get into the mode of posting the same phrase a thousand
times ...
--
Bob Lieblich
Or is it a million? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theawsomekid
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 3
Location: sumwhere
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:47 pm
Post subject: Re: a |
|
|
[quote="R J Valentine"]On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 13:16:04 +0100 Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> wrote:
} the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote:
}
}> Donna Richoux <trio@euronet.nl> spake thusly:
}>
}> > The topic is "agreement."
}>
}> See, that's an example which makes it extraordinarily difficult for
}> me to accept the convention of always putting punctuation inside
}> quotes. It implies that the OP should search for some topic named
}> "agreement.".
}
} In your world, yes. Not in mine.
There it implies that the OP should search for some topic called
"agreement," does it?
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@theWorld.com>[/quote]
_____________________________________________________________
again ill have to disagree
in the human language if it is a group of people then it should be are not is
the children are in class
or the children are sitting
family should be used as are
the family are going on a vacation
its not is
and the men are sitting at the bar
you have to look at the context
_________________
john berlac |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
