Let's make this thread an online English Class

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by curioucity, Sep 1, 2003.

  1. chunkylover58 Make it a ... CHEEEESEburger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    592
    Another one:

    Things are different from one another. Not different than one another.

    "Than" indicates comparison.

    "Stan is taller than Dan."

    But ...

    "Stan is different from Dan"
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. stacy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    39

    I just quote this for you from the link beloow:

    ""It" is a troublemaker. You would not believe that grown-up grammarians would argue over "It is I," but such respected fellows as Samuel Johnson, Roy Copperud and the Venerable Fowler have ruminated on the matter. Consider: "It is I who is entitled to Gertie's silver." Or, "It is I who am entitled to the old girl's candlesticks." In reverse gear, "I am it" is clearly better than "I is it." Aarrgh! The folks at Merriam-Webster say the conflict is not resolved, and you are not going to see it resolved in this space."
    what you guys say?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,429
    I myself think that a verb simply agrees with the first subject preceding it, of course, the two (verb and the preceding subject) must be in the same level of clause.
    Like:
    "The man, who the one of you, whom I gave cookies, meet just now is a doctor."
    Okay, Why do I feel like the statement I wrote just now seems a little redundant? Not to mention the sentence is just plain awful......
    Guess I ain't becoming a teacher......
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. chunkylover58 Make it a ... CHEEEESEburger Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    592
    "Species" is both plural and singular.

    "Homo sapiens is an interesting species."
    "There are many species of plants in this terrarium."
     
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    For "It is I" versus "It is me", see below. But for the longer sentence, the "who" that is subject of the clause about the silver refers back to the predicate complement of the main clause, "I", not the subject of the main clause, "it". Therefore, "It is I who am..." is correct. Nonetheless, because of the ambivalence you cite during the evolution of our language, most editors would not give "It is I who is..." a second glance.

    Bcause that sentence is just plain awful! It's impossible to parse and figure out the meaning. No matter what the intention, there are at least two grammatical errors.

    If you're implying that "one of you" has met "the man," then it should be "whom the one of you," not "who...".

    Since "one of you" already did the meeting, as made clear by the adverbial phrase "just now", then "meet" should be "met" (past tense).

    "Whom" by itself can only be used as a direct object. The verb "to give" takes both a direct and an indirect object. In this case "cookies" is the direct object so "whom" is the indirect object. Therefore, "whom" must be preceded by "to" to explicitly be an indirect object: "to whom I gave cookies".

    The subordinate clause about the meeting must be set off by both a preceding and a following comma, so it should end with "...just now, is a doctor."

    The subordinate clause about the cookies is nested and not complicated, so it improves clarity to not set it off with preceding and following commas.

    Therefore, the best you can do with this sentence is, "The man, whom the one of you to whom I gave cookies met just now, is a doctor."

    Sentences like this should be recomposed to avoid these problems. Dashes are good: "The man whom one of you met just now -- the one of you to whom I gave the cookies -- is a doctor."

    For that matter, the rule about not ending a clause with a preposition is a legend which has never been true in English, and in American usage we don't stand on the formality of "who/whom" instead "that", which can be omitted if easily inferred. It would be even shorter and clearer to say: "The man one of you met just now -- the one of you I gave the cookies to -- is a doctor."

    This is perfectly good American English and on top of that you can actually understand it.

    English is not one of those languages like French or Spanish that has an academy to establish rules. Even if it did, English speakers as a community tend not to respect authority, so nobody would care what the academy said. Our dictionaries and stylebooks reflect actual prevailing usage, rather than the rules our grandparents wrote by. In half a century I've witnessed the following changes in the "official" rules.

    1950: Buffalo, 1. Any of several species of domesticated oxen in tropical areas. 2. In American slang and incorrect usage, the American bison.
    1975: Buffalo, 1. [the same]. 2. Popularly but unscientifically, the American bison.
    2000: Buffalo, 1. [the same]. 2. The American bison.
    2025 (my prediction): 1. The American bison. 2. Any of several species of domesticated oxen in tropical areas.

    1950: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    1975: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    2000: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Regarding "It is I/me," the rule about predicate complements versus direct objects is so arcane that only pedantic older people like me can even state it clearly. It is an ingrained habit to use the accusative case after any verb, so "It is me" is destined to become standard, accepted usage.

    This goes back to my previous comment about the ingrained habit of using the accusative case after any verb. We feel the same way about prepositions. That's why "between you and I" has not gathered the conciliatory approval that "It is me" has. "And" is not a preposition, but "between" is. When we slow down and think about it, "between you and me" sounds better.

    "Between you and I" is one of those ironic usages that belies a desire to sound educated without actually being educated. This phenomenon pops up occasionally in grammatical constructions like this, but it is positively rampant in pronunciation.

    The T in "often" is silent. "Often" is not derived from "oft"; it comes from a different source and has always been pronounced "offen". The earliest lexicographers made the mistake of implying a connection that wasn't there. They inserted the T and some people now assume that it should be pronounced. Wrong on both counts. It shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be pronounced.

    Ditto for the first C in "arctic." English got that word from French. Even though the original Latin word "arcticus" contained the two C's, the French stopped pronouncing the first C in their word "artique" long before they invaded England in 1066. Again, it was an overzealous lexicographer who happened to know Latin (as most educated people did) who put the C back into a French word that didn't really contain it. Same as above. The first C shouldn't be there, and it shouldn't be pronounced. The proper pronunciation of "arctic" is "artic".
     
  9. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,429
    Thank you for the explanation.
    Better start making essays......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Closet Philosopher Off to Laurentian University Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,785
    Both sentences sound wrong, but I would have to go with the second one, even though no one probably cares that much anyway.
     
  11. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    RE: it/its/it's:
    "Just because a word ends in "S" doesn't mean there should be an apostrophe before the "S." Possessives and contractions only."
    Except for the very case you are mentioning.

    "The bird sat in its nest."

    The bird owns that nest, therefore, logically, you would write "it's", seeing that the bird possesses the nest. However, in the case of the word "it", you don't. So you end up with "its" and the very often wrong "it's", with as far as I can tell, no logical reasoning for which one is "right."
    either way "it is"="it's", no bones about it.

    what really bugs me is the whole quote and punctuation thing. We have, here in the US, created quite a confusion. I was taught that if you have a quote as part of a sentance, and continue the sentance after the quote, then the period becomes a comma, and is place inside the quotes.
    "I'm home," she said as she dropped her keys on the table.

    However, if you have a atomic object (not as in made of atoms, but in the latin sense of "indivisable") in quotes, and it is followed by punctuation, then the punctuation goes outside of the quotes.

    We're talking about English, though there is often a difference between the langauge and what is called its "dialects".
    (a poor example, as the quotes aren;t really needed here..can't think of a better one)

    Then again, I majored in Comp Sci and Bio, not English.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So I don't really know.

    edit:spelling
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2004
  12. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,429
    Hi
    I found this funny phrase(clause/part of a sentence, whatever you wanna call it) in the net, and I wnat your opinion too about it.
    "...... which includes, but not limited to, ......."

    I myself find this phrase considerably redundant, since 'to include' implies that the following objects are part of something, and the particular phrase "not limited to" perhaps simply means that the following objects are not the only part of something.
    What do you think?
     
  13. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442

    Write the whole sentence!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,429
    From a hosting site

    "Use of ********** service to harm, or attempt to harm, minors in any way, including, but not limited to child pornography."

    Now what's your opinion?
     
  15. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    It wants to say:
    that *** includes child pornography,
    but it is not limited to child pornography alone = it includes also other kinds of pornography, for example adult pornography.

    The use of commas in English is a hellish thing to learn, both in reading as in writing.
    Good luck!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,429
    Well, I understand that it prohibits child pornography and other things by observing the word "including"(to include) there...... that's why I said earlier it's redundant to say "not limited to" after "including"....
    Thanks for your reply anyway. I agree that sometimes punctuations can hurt

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    I'm not sure I understand your problem here. You said that your native language was an Asian language -- Chinese or Japanese maybe?

    When you said "that's why I said earlier it's redundant to say "not limited to" after "including"", a flashlight went on in my head:

    Do you have troubles with English sentences like:
    He wants me to read that book.
    The book I read was written by Shakespeare.
    The day the earth stood still.

    I bet it is the syntactic structure of your native language that is working here, making your understanding of English a bit harder.

    >>Well, I understand that it prohibits child pornography and other things by observing the word "including"(to include) there...... that's why I said earlier it's redundant to say "not limited to" after "including"....

    It is not redundant: that original sentence
    "Use of ********** service to harm, or attempt to harm, minors in any way, including, but not limited to child pornography."

    is a shorter form of this:
    "Use of ********** service to harm, or attempt to harm, minors in any way, including child pornography, but not limited to child pornography."
    In order to avoid saying the same phrase twice, the sentence can be shortened.
    It's like saying: There are stars in the sky, but not only stars. = There are stars in the sky and other things that are not stars.
     
  18. Padma Spankologist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    205
    What should I say to an employee who uses horrible grammar in the office? I don’t want to be too hard on her, but sometimes I just cringe when I hear her speaking to a client on the phone or in person. Any advice?
     
  19. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,429
    Point taken about multi-lingualistic structures confussion.....
    About my question, okay, I understand your point...... I just wonder why 'official' statements are often 'oddly' lengthy...... like that sentence, why can't they just write:
    "Use of ********** service to harm, or attempt to harm, minors in any way, including child pornography."
    Which I consider to be clear enough.

    BTW: About the last sentence I wrote, I just feel like there's something wrong with it, could someone correct/comment on it?

    And Padma, I'm sorry, I've never been in office life, so I have no suggestion at all.... other than replacing that employee with a better one (doesn't always mean disemployment though, I mean like, look for someone else in your office who is better)......
     
  20. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Naw. They had to say that the *** thing includes child pornography AND other kinds of pornography.

    I think it is ok.
    You meant something like: "I consider that sentence that it is clear enough." Just that nobody says such things, English tends to leave out markers of relative clauses (esp. "that").
     
  21. curioucity Unbelievable and odd Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,429
    Ah, so the 'not limited to' phrase is meant to broaden the meaning, isn't it? Okay, got that, thanks
     
  22. jadedflower observer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,477
    Suicide and Sex are not verbs.

    -Suicide-
    NO:

    Did he suicide?
    Did he suicide himself?
    He was caught suiciding.

    YES:

    He commited suicide.
    He was caugh commiting suicied.

    If you don't know how to use the word; opt for "killing himself"

    -Sex-

    NO:

    They were sexing.

    Yes:

    They were having sex.
     
  23. Starthane Xyzth returns occasionally... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,465
    Sex & suicide are therefore nouns: names of actions, not objects.

    Someone who has taken his/her own life can be called: "A suicide"; it then becomes a noun for the person.

    All the members of a particular gender within a species can be referred to as "THE sex"; e.g. "the fairer sex," which is a set to which you belong. "Sex" is thus the noun for a (very large) collection of persons.
     

Share This Page