edders' campaign for grammatical excellence

Watch
This discussion is closed.
crana
Badges:
#261
Report 15 years ago
#261
(Original post by muncrun)
Shall I assume that every debate you enter into is for the purpose of achieving reputation?
you can if you like - fair enough if you don't care - but your post had the tone of being self-consciously "correct"...but maybe you just talk like that all the time anyway... who am I to know?
0
muncrun
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#262
Report 15 years ago
#262
(Original post by crana)
well, I fail to see what other reason you had for posting it.
I also note that when I just looked at your public profile, your last activity was 'viewing user control panel'. Checking up on reputation were we?
0
eleenia
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#263
Report 15 years ago
#263
(Original post by muncrun)
Shall I assume that every debate you enter into is for the purpose of achieving reputation?
Please, answer my post before - you seem to be quite in-the-know about grammar and I wanted to know if my post was grammatically correct even if the content was nonsensical.
0
muncrun
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#264
Report 15 years ago
#264
(Original post by crana)
you can if you like - fair enough if you don't care - but your post had the tone of being self-consciously "correct"...but maybe you just talk like that all the time anyway... who am I to know?
Yea I guess I do.

Anyway, sorry if I'm coming across as being harsh. I mean no offence.
0
crana
Badges:
#265
Report 15 years ago
#265
(Original post by eleenia)
Yes, I think oxen is AS. What about sheep (pl)? where does that come from?
I'm not sure...

I found this: http://www.dac.neu.edu/english/kakelly/med/lang.html

it looks like AS plurals were complicated because they used several different cases we don't bother with today
0
crana
Badges:
#266
Report 15 years ago
#266
(Original post by muncrun)
I also note that when I just looked at your public profile, your last activity was 'viewing user control panel'. Checking up on reputation were we?

erm, no, it lists if there are any recent posts on any threads I've posted on..why, have you repped me?
0
crana
Badges:
#267
Report 15 years ago
#267
(Original post by muncrun)
Yea I guess I do.

Anyway, sorry if I'm coming across as being harsh. I mean no offence.
me neither... truce?

(which reminds me - I'm reading a book at the moment and the characters keep saying things like "Don't take offense, Susan!" - I am far from the most stylish or accurate poster on here - but ouch, other people really make me cringe!)
0
muncrun
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#268
Report 15 years ago
#268
(Original post by eleenia)
Please, answer my post before - you seem to be quite in-the-know about grammar and I wanted to know if my post was grammatically correct even if the content was nonsensical.
Surely you're winding me up?
0
muncrun
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#269
Report 15 years ago
#269
(Original post by crana)
me neither... truce?

(which reminds me - I'm reading a book at the moment and the characters keep saying things like "Don't take offense, Susan!" - I am far from the most stylish or accurate poster on here - but ouch, other people really make me cringe!)
Is it an American book? If so, 'offense' is their correct spelling, as is 'defense'.
0
crana
Badges:
#270
Report 15 years ago
#270
(Original post by muncrun)
Is it an American book? If so, 'offense' is their correct spelling, as is 'defense'.
Yes, it is actually! Thanks, I will try not to cringe at it anymore.. I didn't know that was a difference in the US.

Eleenia, I haven't found anything very helpful but I just thought this was interesting:

"A word in the form in which it refers to more than one person or thing; or more than two things if the language has a dual form.
Note: Many languages have singular and plural forms for one item or more than one item. Some have a singular form for one, dual form for two, and plural for more than two (e.g., Anglo-Saxon, Hebrew)."
0
eleenia
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#271
Report 15 years ago
#271
(Original post by muncrun)
Surely you're winding me up?
No! I have a theory that something can be grammatically (or maybe i mean syntactically?) correct without having coherent meaning. I'm sure this is what Joyce explores in Finnagan's Wake? And if this is the case, it's more important to judge content or meaning over grammatical correctness.
0
eleenia
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#272
Report 15 years ago
#272
(Original post by crana)
Yes, it is actually! Thanks, I will try not to cringe at it anymore.. I didn't know that was a difference in the US.

Eleenia, I haven't found anything very helpful but I just thought this was interesting:

"A word in the form in which it refers to more than one person or thing; or more than two things if the language has a dual form.
Note: Many languages have singular and plural forms for one item or more than one item. Some have a singular form for one, dual form for two, and plural for more than two (e.g., Anglo-Saxon, Hebrew)."

I think sheep as a plural must be from the AS too. Language is a wonderful thing.
0
crana
Badges:
#273
Report 15 years ago
#273
(Original post by eleenia)
I think sheep as a plural must be from the AS too. Language is a wonderful thing.
I wonder what two sheep were then

rosie
0
eleenia
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#274
Report 15 years ago
#274
(Original post by crana)
I wonder what two sheep were then

rosie
Sheepies? I think that's a much better word.
0
musicman
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#275
Report 15 years ago
#275
(Original post by eleenia)
so the book of Keats would be Keats's book?
and the book of Jesus would be Jesus' book?

And if the Keats family shared a book it would be the Keatses' book?
And if the Jesus clan had a book it would be the Jesuses' book?

Yay?
I believe that the debate over whether or not to place an 's' after the apostrophe or not is dependant upon the way it is pronounced. If you pronounced the title of this thread "edderses campaign" then there should be an apostrophe after the s; if you pronounce it "edders campaign" (which I would and I'm sure most would, to be honest), then there is no need for the 's' and it should indeed read "edders' campaign".

Keats's book would be correct because you would pronounce it "keatses book".
I would have thought it would have been "Jesus's book", as I wouldn't say "jesus book" I'd say "Jesuses book".

I'm sure this rule is correct, and I think edders did make this point earlier on in the thread.
0
eleenia
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#276
Report 15 years ago
#276
(Original post by musicman)
I believe that the debate over whether or not to place an 's' after the apostrophe or not is dependant upon the way it is pronounced. If you pronounced the title of this thread "edderses campaign" then there should be an apostrophe after the s; if you pronounce it "edders campaign" (which I would and I'm sure most would, to be honest), then there is no need for the 's' and it should indeed read "edders' campaign".

Keats's book would be correct because you would pronounce it "keatses book".
I would have thought it would have been "Jesus's book", as I wouldn't say "jesus book" I'd say "Jesuses book".

I'm sure this rule is correct, and I think edders did make this point earlier on in the thread.
But I see "Jesus'" all the time?! My theory is that over the course of history there have been numerous men and women (including the Lizzie woman of muncrun's post) who have sat down to ponder this issue and they have all wrote different things. Which is why we can all harp back to various sources to back up our arguments. It's probably nothing more than that.
0
musicman
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#277
Report 15 years ago
#277
(Original post by eleenia)
But I see "Jesus'" all the time?! My theory is that over the course of history there have been numerous men and women (including the Lizzie woman of muncrun's post) who have sat down to ponder this issue and they have all wrote different things. Which is why we can all harp back to various sources to back up our arguments. It's probably nothing more than that.
I think the decision whether to place an s after the apostrophe in this instance is partly personal preference (alliteration - I've got to get rep for that!) anyway, and I think the argument is ambiguous at the best of times so I don't think we should worry about it too much.
0
muncrun
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#278
Report 15 years ago
#278
(Original post by musicman)
I believe that the debate over whether or not to place an 's' after the apostrophe or not is dependant upon the way it is pronounced. If you pronounced the title of this thread "edderses campaign" then there should be an apostrophe after the s; if you pronounce it "edders campaign" (which I would and I'm sure most would, to be honest), then there is no need for the 's' and it should indeed read "edders' campaign".
Surely there has to be rules of pronunciation otherwise our language would collapse due to a lack of coherency. It cannot come down to a matter of what is the subjectively preferable pronunciation since it would be equally legitimate for me to say 'addorzays' rather than 'edderses'. Our language tends to evolve when people make incorrect uses of the English language, which become more widespread over time, and such words then gain legitimacy. There is no good reason why this should be allowed to take place: if anything it promotes uncertainty in the English language. If edders' were to be held grammatically correct then one would hypothetically not know if the word represented a plural body of moderators. By adhering to rules, as in the case of the pronunciation of edders's, we can uphold certainty in the English language, which is a far more legitimate aim than permitting subjective pronunciations of words. Consequently, the pronunciation of edders's must be derived from the correct grammatical pronunciation rather than the other way round.

[EDIT: grammar!]
0
musicman
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#279
Report 15 years ago
#279
(Original post by muncrun)
Surely there has to be rules of pronunciation otherwise our language would collapse due to a lack of coherency. It cannot come down to a matter of what is the subjectively preferable pronunciation since it would be equally legitimate for me to say 'addorzays' rather than 'edderses'. Our language tends to evolve when people make incorrect uses of the English language, which become more widespread over time, and such words then gain legitimacy. There is no good reason why this should be allowed to take place: if anything it promotes uncertainty in the English language. If edders' were to be held grammatically correct then one would hypothetically not know if the word represented a plural body of moderators. By adhering to rules, as in thecase the pronunciation of edders's, we can uphold certainty in the English language, which is a far more legitimate aim than permitting subjective pronunciations of words. Consequently, the pronunciation of edders's must be derived from the correct grammatical pronunciation rather than the other way round.
How long did it take you to come up with that?
0
crana
Badges:
#280
Report 15 years ago
#280
regarding a/an

I would say "an hour" but "a horse"...is "an hour" right? coming from notts I would tend to pronounce hour as our...to me it sounds very laboured to say "a hour" pronouncing the H...so I'm not sure if it's my pronunciation that is leading me to make a mistake, or if I'm right.

interestingly, in the past several common words we use today started with "n"s and the n's became transferred so that "a napron" became "an apron" and so on... or so I read somewhere anyway

EDIT: I answered my own question...

"Usage Note: In writing, the form a is used before a word beginning with a consonant sound, regardless of its spelling (a frog, a university). The form an is used before a word beginning with a vowel sound (an orange, an hour). ·An was once a common variant before words beginning with h in which the first syllable was unstressed; thus 18th-century authors wrote either a historical or an historical but a history, not an history. This usage made sense in that people often did not pronounce the initial h in words such as historical and heroic, but by the late 19th century educated speakers usually pronounced initial h, and the practice of writing an before such words began to die out. Nowadays it survives primarily before the word historical. One may also come across it in the phrases an hysterectomy or an hereditary trait. These usages are acceptable in formal writing."

but now I am wondering which words would normally have a "h" sound but perhaps I drop the H's on as part of a regional accent, so a/an wrongly.....? suggestions?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you finding researching unis for 2021 entry?

I have been able to get all the information I need from online research (58)
19.21%
I have tried virtual events and found them useful (64)
21.19%
I have tried virtual events and did not find them useful (58)
19.21%
I would be interested in trying socially distanced or scaled down in person events (64)
21.19%
I want to but don't know where to start with researching unis for 2021 entry (29)
9.6%
I haven't started researching yet (29)
9.6%

Watched Threads

View All