Schoolboy Grammar

[Tyson, Jim]

But please note that the adjective from "grammar" is "grammatical", not "grammar"!

But who cares since it doesn't need to be an adjective? The following are all fine

A mathematics error
A physics error
A Cooking error

Although the example is more like

A rooky error
A newbie error

Or maybe better

A newbie gamer error

But take what I say with a large pinch of NaCl because I'm frequently hoist by my own pedantry.

-----Original Message-----
From: gllug-***@gllug.org.uk [mailto:gllug-***@gllug.org.uk] On Behalf Of gllug-***@gllug.org.uk
Sent: 26 March 2012 12:00
To: ***@gllug.org.uk
Subject: Gllug Digest, Vol 105, Issue 19

Send Gllug mailing list submissions to
***@gllug.org.uk

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
gllug-***@gllug.org.uk

You can reach the person managing the list at
gllug-***@gllug.org.uk

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Gllug digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: VACANCY: Linux Systems Administrator (JLMS)
2. Re: VACANCY: Linux Systems Administrator (Keith Edmunds)
3. Re: VACANCY: Linux Systems Administrator (John G Walker)
4. Gnome 3 (Mick Farmer)
5. Re: Gnome 3 (Stuart Sears)
6. Re: Gnome 3 (Richard W.M. Jones)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:11:53 +0100
From: JLMS <***@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gllug] VACANCY: Linux Systems Administrator
To: Greater London Linux User Group <***@gllug.org.uk>
Message-ID:
<CAD7yA7wuv1+gK1qEMsNruA15biZXm62AJn9PHJMPi3fv9d+***@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Here's our criteria for selecting

...

A candidate with RHEL and a degree who believes that it is acceptable
for the pronoun "I" to be written "i" will probably not get an interview.

So, presumably, you'll be giving yourself a stern ticking off for the
schoolboy grammar error in your first sentence :)

Well spotted.

Some people hiring in such a harsh basis should eat a bit of humble pay once in a while, some of these people (not necessarily the grammar lover on this thread) then moan about shortages of skilled professionals, but some of them make hiring decisions on the most bizarre of basis discarding perfectly capable professionals that don't fit their very narrow view of overall competence.


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:02:20 +0100
From: Keith Edmunds <***@midnighthax.com>
Subject: Re: [Gllug] VACANCY: Linux Systems Administrator
To: ***@gllug.org.uk
Message-ID: <***@ws.the.cage>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

So, presumably, you'll be giving yourself a stern ticking off for the
schoolboy grammar error in your first sentence :)

Absolutely!
--
"You can have everything in life you want if you help enough other people get what they want" - Zig Ziglar.

Who did you help today?


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:22:48 +0100
From: John G Walker <***@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [Gllug] VACANCY: Linux Systems Administrator
To: Greater London Linux User Group <***@gllug.org.uk>
Message-ID: <***@Marianne.Harmony>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

So, presumably, you'll be giving yourself a stern ticking off for
the schoolboy grammar error in your first sentence :)

Absolutely!

Actually I don't consider it to be a grammatical error, but, rather, a colloquialism.

But please note that the adjective from "grammar" is "grammatical", not "grammar"!

The trouble with being pedantic about the English language is that you run the risk of making errors yourself. On the other hand, I'd be a bit wary of someone who used "i" in a formal document, unless they happened to be e.e.cummings,

--
All the best,
John


------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:43:24 +0100
From: Mick Farmer <***@plan7.co.uk>
Subject: [Gllug] Gnome 3
To: gllug <***@gllug.org.uk>
Message-ID: <***@lapwing>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Dear GLLUGers,

Today I upgraded Fedora from 14 to 16. I assume that Gnome 3 is my new
window manager.

However, when I try to change anything I don't have an "Activities" on
the left of my top menu, just "Applications" and "Places".

Am I really running Gnome 3?

If so, how do I access my activities?

Any help is appreciated.

Regards,

Mick



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:04:03 +0100
From: Stuart Sears <***@sjsears.com>
Subject: Re: [Gllug] Gnome 3
To: Greater London Linux User Group <***@gllug.org.uk>
Message-ID: <***@sjsears.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

Dear GLLUGers,
Today I upgraded Fedora from 14 to 16. I assume that Gnome 3 is my
new
window manager.
However, when I try to change anything I don't have an "Activities"
on
the left of my top menu, just "Applications" and "Places".

It's possible you are running in fallback mode, which is used when the
graphics HW in your system is not 'powerful' enough for the full-on
GNOME Shell experience. What's the spec of the machine you're running
on?

Does your screen look like the screenshots of fallback mode on this
site?

http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/gnome-3-fallback.html

Am I really running Gnome 3?

Yes, probably. If you're on Fedora 16, pretty much definitely as there
is no GNOME2 available.

If so, how do I access my activities?

Define 'activities' in this sense? the fancy overlays (probably**)
won't work in fallback mode, but you should be able to run apps from the
'Applications' menu as before.



Stuart

** I have no idea, I haven't actually used fallback mode.



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:22:54 +0100
From: "Richard W.M. Jones" <***@annexia.org>
Subject: Re: [Gllug] Gnome 3
To: Greater London Linux User Group <***@gllug.org.uk>
Message-ID: <***@annexia.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Today I upgraded Fedora from 14 to 16. I assume that Gnome 3 is my new
window manager.
However, when I try to change anything I don't have an "Activities" on
the left of my top menu, just "Applications" and "Places".
Am I really running Gnome 3?

Yes, in fallback mode.

You might want to try XFCE:

# yum install @XFCE

then log out and at the login prompt select "XFCE 4" as your
session manager.

Rich.
--
Richard Jones
Red Hat


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gllug mailing list - ***@gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug


End of Gllug Digest, Vol 105, Issue 19
**************************************


--
Gllug mailing list - ***@gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

[Rob Crowther]

Post by Tyson, Jim
A rooky error

Since we're being pedantic: a rookie error. Rooky is something
different, although unlike rookie it is an adjective.

Rob

--
Gllug mailing list - ***@gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

[Stuart Sears]

Post by Tyson, Jim

But please note that the adjective from "grammar" is "grammatical", not "grammar"!

But who cares since it doesn't need to be an adjective?

Um, yes "it" does, in general. You can write sentences with a 'noun
adjunct' where nouns are used as modifiers of other nouns, but it does
not read well, except in the cases where there is no other 'grammatical'
way to frame a particular thought.

Post by Tyson, Jim
The following are all fine

They're also not examples of the same thing.

Post by Tyson, Jim
A mathematics error

In what way is that fine?
Surely it's either an "error in mathematics" or "a mathematical error"?
If there was no adjectival form of 'mathematics', I'd probably agree
with you.
As if that were important or something. :)

Post by Tyson, Jim
A physics error

[insert similar argument]
Having said that, "physical" does not predominantly imply anything to
do with 'physics' in general usage and might give a different meaning to
the phrase. I still think that "an error in physics" is better.

Post by Tyson, Jim
A Cooking error

Cooking is a gerund and therefore an adjectival form, so this one
works, although probably not for the reason you gave (it is adjectival).
Although you can still say "An error in cooking"

Post by Tyson, Jim
Although the example is more like
A rooky error

"rookie" :)
Unless you're referring to an error characterised by an abundance of
rooks, I suppose.
here, rookie is used as a modifier - it's an adjectival noun anyway.

Post by Tyson, Jim
A newbie error
Or maybe better
A newbie gamer error
But take what I say with a large pinch of NaCl because I'm frequently
hoist by my own pedantry.

On that very note:

Did you absolutely have to posting (what appears to be) the entire
digest email with a random portion responded to at the top and all the
unrelated parts beneath it?
Surely something else for the pedants to get their teeth into :)

[snip] <- see? :)

Stuart
(waiting for the rebuttal)

p.s. Yes, I am aware that languages change and evolve. I spent several
years teaching them for a living.

</flame off>


--
Gllug mailing list - ***@gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

[Stuart Sears]

[...]

Post by Stuart Sears

Post by Tyson, Jim
A rooky error

"rookie" :)
Unless you're referring to an error characterised by an abundance of
rooks, I suppose.
here, rookie is used as a modifier - it's an adjectival noun anyway.

oops, no it isn't. It's a noun adjunct.
[...]

Post by Stuart Sears
Did you absolutely have to posting (what appears to be) the entire

and yes, of course that was meant to say "post"

Post by Stuart Sears
digest email with a random portion responded to at the top and all the
unrelated parts beneath it?
Surely something else for the pedants to get their teeth into :)

[...]

Stuart

(who appears to be remarkably poor at spotting errors in his own emails
until after hitting the 'send' button.)

--
Gllug mailing list - ***@gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

[JLMS]

<mega snip of grammatical discussion>

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Literature Nobel Prize winner, has atrocious
grammar and spelling (self confessed, confirmed by frustrated
editors), but nobody doubts his accomplishments as a writer, he has
won pretty much any literary prize you care to mention (which by
definition makes him a good communicator I suppose).

Vladimir Nabokov ditto (at least in English, which is more surprising
since his native tongue was Russian, still he managed to write one of
the greatest novels in English language).

So evaluating technicians on the basis of how perfect their grammar
and spelling skills are, well, somehow is missing the bigger picture
(since not even great writers are necessary evaluated on that basis
alone), but hey, this is a free country....

if communication is so key to a business plan then technicians should
not be doing the communicating on their own, a competent technical
writer should be reviewing what they write before it reaches clients.

If the communication is to transmit specific ongoing technical matters
then as long as the communication is professional and clear why should
one go with such a fine comb checking for grammatical correctness? I
as a client would not feel offended by one mistake or two during the
normal flow of a conversation and can always ask for clarification if
something is not explained properly (which sometimes isn't even using
pristine English, just listen to some politicians ...)
--
Gllug mailing list - ***@gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

[Keith Edmunds]

Post by JLMS
So evaluating technicians on the basis of how perfect their grammar
and spelling skills are, well, somehow is missing the bigger picture

Maybe you're right; however, a business is about a lot more than having
the required technical skills available. This is the wrong forum, but I
could happily rabbit on a about "market positioning" for long enough to
bore most people. Let's try this: imagine you are in Lidl and you ask an
assistant where the coffee is, and they reply, "Up there, mate, next to
the veg". You'd probably be quite happy with that answer. Now put yourself
in Waitrose and ask the same question. Would you be surprised if you had
exactly the same response?

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of any response; I'm discussing
perceptions and expectations. One would not, for example, expect The Times
to have the headline, "Cor, what a June scorcher!" on a hot day in summer,
but no one minds The Sun doing it
(http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2508936/Cor-what-a-June-scorcher.html,
and no, I'm not a Sun reader!)

[Robert]

Post by Keith Edmunds

Post by JLMS
So evaluating technicians on the basis of how perfect their grammar
and spelling skills are, well, somehow is missing the bigger picture

Maybe you're right; however, a business is about a lot more than having
the required technical skills available. This is the wrong forum, but I
could happily rabbit on a about "market positioning" for long enough to
bore most people. Let's try this: imagine you are in Lidl and you ask an
assistant where the coffee is, and they reply, "Up there, mate, next to
the veg". You'd probably be quite happy with that answer. Now put yourself
in Waitrose and ask the same question. Would you be surprised if you had
exactly the same response?
I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of any response; I'm discussing
perceptions and expectations. One would not, for example, expect The Times
to have the headline, "Cor, what a June scorcher!" on a hot day in summer,
but no one minds The Sun doing it
(http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2508936/Cor-what-a-June-scorcher.html,
and no, I'm not a Sun reader!)

Appreciating your example that is looking at the companies point of view
for upholding their image, then its important this is reflected in the
salary of the job holder.
I see every week an incredible amount of differences between company
requirements for similar jobs, while the salary on offer doesn't match
that variation. I would describe comms skills as an "extra" for
technical personnel, not something that should be thought of as standard
skillsets.

I used to work in the finance industry for my sins, and although not
strictly consistent I did find that for the senior managers I worked
for, they were more concerned about your comms being succinct rather
than using professional terminology. The lower level management seemed
to be more concerned about using big words and flavour of the month
choices from the dictionary.

Communication skills are not easy, largely conducted by your body
expression and tone of voice, two aspects that many people are not
conscientiously aware of. Electronic communication is just as
troublesome, I'm sure everyone here has misinterpreted the emotion or
opinion in an email at sometime before.

If someone is able to translate technical jargon to plain English for
the audience to understand the points being expressed, and they can
avoid the disastrous butchering of the English language that requires
you to seek confirmation at the end of every sentence, "yer", "you get
me", "you know what I mean", then there is hope you can learn the
required language skills on the job.

ps. Clearly I never learnt to be succinct :)
--
Gllug mailing list - ***@gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

[Nix]

Post by Robert
If someone is able to translate technical jargon to plain English for
the audience to understand the points being expressed, and they can
avoid the disastrous butchering of the English language that requires
you to seek confirmation at the end of every sentence, "yer", "you get
me", "you know what I mean"

As a random aside, many sentence-final tags have other purposes than to
seek confirmation (actually, I'd say that most do, from softening
otherwise harsh sentences through to assisting with conversational
grammar by indicating when another speaker is expected to take over).
They have meanings as subtle and difficult to clearly define as any
other part of the language. They just happen to be a marker of
informality and, in the UK at least, a class marker. That doesn't make
them bad.

Informal conversational English has several such tags, 'innit' probably
being the most common in much of the south-east, but 'y'know' is pretty
common too. (Though anything is annoying when overused: I was on the bus
last week with one old lady who used 'you know what I mean' in *every
sentence* and sometimes repeated it two or three times for emphasis.)

[Nix]

Post by Keith Edmunds
bore most people. Let's try this: imagine you are in Lidl and you ask an
assistant where the coffee is, and they reply, "Up there, mate, next to
the veg".

Misread as 'ltdl' which caused significant confusion for a while. Why,
yes, you do need coffee when hacking libltdl, but veg is less commonly
required.

[Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker]

Post by Nix

Post by Keith Edmunds
bore most people. Let's try this: imagine you are in Lidl and you ask an
assistant where the coffee is, and they reply, "Up there, mate, next to
the veg".

Misread as 'ltdl' which caused significant confusion for a while. Why,
yes, you do need coffee when hacking libltdl, but veg is less commonly
required.

Lack of coffee causes one's mental state to resemble that of a
vegetable?

[Nix]

Post by Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker

Post by Nix

Post by Keith Edmunds
bore most people. Let's try this: imagine you are in Lidl and you ask an
assistant where the coffee is, and they reply, "Up there, mate, next to
the veg".

Misread as 'ltdl' which caused significant confusion for a while. Why,
yes, you do need coffee when hacking libltdl, but veg is less commonly
required.

Lack of coffee causes one's mental state to resemble that of a
vegetable?

True. Right now mine resembles a vegetable anyway: I just can't shake
off this blasted post-illness exhaustion...

[Tethys .]

Post by Tyson, Jim
But take what I say with a large pinch of NaCl because I'm frequently
hoist by my own pedantry.

Did you absolutely have to posting (what appears to be) the entire digest
email with a random portion responded to at the top and all the unrelated
parts beneath it?
Surely something else for the pedants to get their teeth into :)

Indeed. 449 bytes of correctly quoted reply and 6987 of randomly
attached digest results in a very poor signal to noise ratio.

Tet

[Chris Vine]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:18:30 +0100

Post by Stuart Sears

Post by Tyson, Jim
A Cooking error

Cooking is a gerund and therefore an adjectival form, so this one
works, although probably not for the reason you gave (it is
adjectival). Although you can still say "An error in cooking"

I am not convinced you are right. A gerund is a noun form, and a
participle an adjectival form. Both are identical in formation, but
different in grammar. So "an error in cooking" is a gerund. I believe
"a cooking error" is in fact a present participle. We both agree
though that "a cooking error" is correct English.

Chris
--
Gllug mailing list - ***@gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

[Stuart Sears]

Post by Chris Vine
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:18:30 +0100

Post by Stuart Sears

Post by Tyson, Jim
A Cooking error

Cooking is a gerund and therefore an adjectival form, so this one
works, although probably not for the reason you gave (it is
adjectival). Although you can still say "An error in cooking"

I am not convinced you are right. A gerund is a noun form, and a
participle an adjectival form. Both are identical in formation, but
different in grammar. So "an error in cooking" is a gerund. I believe
"a cooking error" is in fact a present participle. We both agree
though that "a cooking error" is correct English.

You're absolutely right. Oops.

English grammar is really very weird anyway, as it appears to have been
an attempt to apply the niceties of Latin grammar to a non-latin
language.
A classic example was the 'split infinitive' silliness, which
thankfully appears to have gone away now.

Now, let's dissect the niceties of "it's" vs "its" and "your" vs
"you're" (never mind "I" vs "me" and "less" vs "fewer" which annoy me
too. I am clearly a bit OCD about this.)

:)

Stuart

[John Hearns]

Post by Stuart Sears
Now, let's dissect the niceties of "it's" vs "its" and "your" vs
"you're" (never mind "I" vs "me" and "less" vs "fewer" which annoy me
too. I am clearly a bit OCD about this.)

Oh come on. You've got to try harder than that.
I used to work at St. Thomas' Hospital.
--
Gllug mailing list - ***@gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

[Nix]

Post by Stuart Sears
(never mind "I" vs "me"

I don't understand why this is emphasised so much when people never
emphasise 'he' versus 'him'. It seems to be a cause of overcorrection
and nothing else.

Post by Stuart Sears
and "less" vs "fewer" which annoy me too.

That's a really nasty one. There are many instances for which both are
valid, the standard 'count noun' thing is simplistic, and in general if
you're not sure which you should use, just use 'less'. It's clear that
'less trees' is worse than 'fewer trees', but 'less than five words' is
definitely better than 'fewer than five words', even though 'five words'
is countable.

The always excellent MWDEU says

Post by Stuart Sears
The OED shows that 'less' has been used of countables since the time
of King Alfred the Great... more than a thousand years ago (in about
888). So essentially 'less' has been used of countables in English for
just about as long as there has been a written English language.

but is eventually forced to admit

Post by Stuart Sears
If you are a native speaker, your use of /less/ and /fewer/ can
reliably be guided by your ear.

i.e. if there is a hard rule, it hasn't been explicated yet. (Like most
such rules, the true underlying rule is likely far too complex to follow
consciously at conversational speed, and probably varies among the
population of native speakers.)

[Stuart Sears]

Post by Nix

Post by Stuart Sears
(never mind "I" vs "me"

I don't understand why this is emphasised so much when people never
emphasise 'he' versus 'him'. It seems to be a cause of overcorrection
and nothing else.

It's an example of a common error, nothing more. Although I hear that a
lot more than he vs him, she vs her, who vs whom, which are all the same
idea, simple subject-object confusion.

I'm sure the distinction will evolve out of the language over time as
many of the more inflected items already have.

Post by Nix

Post by Stuart Sears
and "less" vs "fewer" which annoy me too.

That's a really nasty one. There are many instances for which both are
valid, the standard 'count noun' thing is simplistic, and in general if
you're not sure which you should use, just use 'less'. It's clear that
'less trees' is worse than 'fewer trees', but 'less than five words' is
definitely better than 'fewer than five words', even though 'five words'
is countable.

I would say 'fewer' for that one. It sounds right to me and, in general,
I would opine that you use 'fewer' with most plurals when you are
referring to them directly and you're not "shortening" a longer phrase.

There are exceptions, of course. English is a very confused language
compared to many others.

so, "fewer than ten items", but "less than ten minutes" IMHO
(usually short for ten minutes' time, which is not countable :) )

however, once again, lots of contradictory examples out there.

Post by Nix
The always excellent MWDEU says

Post by Stuart Sears
The OED shows that 'less' has been used of countables since the time
of King Alfred the Great... more than a thousand years ago (in about
888). So essentially 'less' has been used of countables in English for
just about as long as there has been a written English language.

but is eventually forced to admit

Post by Stuart Sears
If you are a native speaker, your use of /less/ and /fewer/ can
reliably be guided by your ear.

i.e. if there is a hard rule, it hasn't been explicated yet. (Like most
such rules, the true underlying rule is likely far too complex to follow
consciously at conversational speed, and probably varies among the
population of native speakers.)

Stuart

[Keith Edmunds]

Post by Nix

Post by Stuart Sears
and "less" vs "fewer" which annoy me too.

That's a really nasty one. There are many instances for which both are
valid

I think that's unlikely, even if we assume you mean "either is" rather
than "both are".

[John G Walker]

Post by Stuart Sears
English grammar is really very weird anyway, as it appears to have
been an attempt to apply the niceties of Latin grammar to a non-latin
language.

One of my bugbears is the "you cna't end a sentence in a preposition"
nonsense. This is true in Latin but it's perfect okay to do so in
English. Fowler calls t a "modern affectation" and points out that, in
the King James Bible, in Genesis chapter 28, I believe, God ends a
sentence in a preposition.

Post by Stuart Sears
A classic example was the 'split infinitive' silliness, which
thankfully appears to have gone away now.

You mean "to have finally gone away"!

(Delayed due to Virgin broadband being down!)

[Stuart Sears]

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears
English grammar is really very weird anyway, as it appears to have
been an attempt to apply the niceties of Latin grammar to a
non-latin
language.

One of my bugbears is the "you cna't end a sentence in a preposition"
nonsense. This is true in Latin but it's perfect okay to do so in
English. Fowler calls t a "modern affectation" and points out that, in
the King James Bible, in Genesis chapter 28, I believe, God ends a
sentence in a preposition.

But the bible was written by humans and then translated into other
languages by different humans.
(now I'm beginning a sentence with a conjunction, another of "those
arguments"). Would that particular sentence have ended in a preposition
in the original Aramaic (or whichever language it was written in).

As I understand it**, the general rule of thumb is
"You should not end a sentence with a preposition if the sentence would
convey the same meaning with the preposition removed"

Sentences with phrasal verbs in them commonly end with a preposition.

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears
A classic example was the 'split infinitive' silliness, which
thankfully appears to have gone away now.

You mean "to have finally gone away"!

Well, perhaps. Reading it back, that particular sentence does sound a
little off.
Would you care to dig out the rule that proscribes ending a sentence
with 'now' ?

How about "which now thankfully appears to have gone away."

:)

Stuart

** which of course means very little

[John G Walker]

Post by Stuart Sears

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears
English grammar is really very weird anyway, as it appears to have
been an attempt to apply the niceties of Latin grammar to a
non-latin
language.

One of my bugbears is the "you cna't end a sentence in a
preposition" nonsense. This is true in Latin but it's perfect okay
to do so in English. Fowler calls t a "modern affectation" and
points out that, in
the King James Bible, in Genesis chapter 28, I believe, God ends a
sentence in a preposition.

But the bible was written by humans and then translated into other
languages by different humans.
(now I'm beginning a sentence with a conjunction, another of "those
arguments"). Would that particular sentence have ended in a
preposition in the original Aramaic (or whichever language it was
written in).

The original language would have been Hebrew. But the point is not what
God said or didn't say. It's that the translators of the King James
Bible, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, unselfconsciously
ended an English sentence with a preposition. It's evidence that there
was no such rule at that point in time. It's of more recent vintage (if
such a silly piece of nonsense can be said to have a vintage).

Post by Stuart Sears
As I understand it**, the general rule of thumb is
"You should not end a sentence with a preposition if the sentence
would convey the same meaning with the preposition removed"

This isn't a grammatical rule, since it's prescriptive.

Post by Stuart Sears
Sentences with phrasal verbs in them commonly end with a preposition.

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears
A classic example was the 'split infinitive' silliness, which
thankfully appears to have gone away now.

You mean "to have finally gone away"!

Well, perhaps. Reading it back, that particular sentence does sound
a little off.
Would you care to dig out the rule that proscribes ending a sentence
with 'now' ?
How about "which now thankfully appears to have gone away."

You've missed my point. I split an infinitive.

Post by Stuart Sears
:)
Stuart
** which of course means very little

[Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker]

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears
A classic example was the 'split infinitive' silliness, which
thankfully appears to have gone away now.

You mean "to have finally gone away"!

^^^^^^^

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears
Well, perhaps. Reading it back, that particular sentence does sound a
little off. Would you care to dig out the rule that proscribes
ending a sentence with 'now' ?
How about "which now thankfully appears to have gone away."

You've missed my point. I split an infinitive.

Doesn't look very split to me. Did you mean "to finally have gone
away"?

[John G Walker]

Post by Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Doesn't look very split to me. Did you mean "to finally have gone
away"?

That's even better. It depends, of course, whether you consider the verb
to be "go" or "have". This shows the absurdity of the rule, since it
isn't then clear whther I've broken it or not!

[Nix]

Post by John G Walker

Post by Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Doesn't look very split to me. Did you mean "to finally have gone
away"?

That's even better. It depends, of course, whether you consider the verb
to be "go" or "have". This shows the absurdity of the rule, since it
isn't then clear whther I've broken it or not!

In any case, the languages to which it truly applies (e.g. Latin) don't
need it, because splitting an infinitive is impossible there. It's only
possible in English because 'to' is a separate word (not in fact part of
the verb at all, but a marker attached to the verb's infinite form, so
the rule is doubly ridiculous).

[Nix]

Post by Nix
In any case, the languages to which it truly applies (e.g. Latin) don't
need it, because splitting an infinitive is impossible there. It's only
possible in English because 'to' is a separate word (not in fact part of
the verb at all, but a marker attached to the verb's infinite form, so
the rule is doubly ridiculous).

s/infinite/infinitive/

(I shall not post when feverish) x 10

[Keith Edmunds]

The verb is "go". Either way, there is a word between "to" and the verb,
so it's split however you look at it. And (ooo!) no, it doesn't matter.

[Stuart Sears]

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears
English grammar is really very weird anyway, as it appears to have
been an attempt to apply the niceties of Latin grammar to a
non-latin
language.

One of my bugbears is the "you cna't end a sentence in a
preposition" nonsense. This is true in Latin but it's perfect okay
to do so in English. Fowler calls t a "modern affectation" and
points out that, in
the King James Bible, in Genesis chapter 28, I believe, God ends a
sentence in a preposition.

But the bible was written by humans and then translated into other
languages by different humans.
(now I'm beginning a sentence with a conjunction, another of "those
arguments"). Would that particular sentence have ended in a
preposition in the original Aramaic (or whichever language it was
written in).

The original language would have been Hebrew. But the point is not what
God said or didn't say. It's that the translators of the King James
Bible, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, unselfconsciously
ended an English sentence with a preposition. It's evidence that there
was no such rule at that point in time. It's of more recent vintage (if
such a silly piece of nonsense can be said to have a vintage).

now that I can agree with.

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears
As I understand it**, the general rule of thumb is
"You should not end a sentence with a preposition if the sentence
would convey the same meaning with the preposition removed"

This isn't a grammatical rule, since it's prescriptive.

Hence the phrase "rule of thumb" which tends to imply "guideline" rather
than actual hard and fast rule.

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears
Sentences with phrasal verbs in them commonly end with a preposition.

Post by John G Walker

Post by Stuart Sears
A classic example was the 'split infinitive' silliness, which
thankfully appears to have gone away now.

You mean "to have finally gone away"!

Well, perhaps. Reading it back, that particular sentence does sound
a little off.
Would you care to dig out the rule that proscribes ending a sentence
with 'now' ?
How about "which now thankfully appears to have gone away."

You've missed my point. I split an infinitive.

no, you didn't.

"to finally go"

or even

"to finally have gone"

would be splitting infinitives. Which is a daft rule to apply to english
anyway.

Stuart

[Gary Pownall]

Post by Stuart Sears

Post by John G Walker
You've missed my point. I split an infinitive.

no, you didn't.
"to finally go"
or even
"to finally have gone"
would be splitting infinitives. Which is a daft rule to apply to english
anyway.

Shouldn't English have a capital 'E'?

Post by Stuart Sears
Stuart
--
Stuart Sears RHCA etc. "It's today!" said Piglet. "My favourite day,"
said Pooh.
--
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

--
Gllug mailing list - ***@gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug

[Bernard Peek]

Post by Gary Pownall

Post by Stuart Sears

Post by John G Walker
You've missed my point. I split an infinitive.

no, you didn't.
"to finally go"
or even
"to finally have gone"
would be splitting infinitives. Which is a daft rule to apply to english
anyway.

Shouldn't English have a capital 'E'?

Standard English usage is to include the terminal punctuation before the
closing quotation mark when it occurs at the end of a sentence.
Personally I do prefer the American form that you used.

[Victor Churchill]

Post by Stuart Sears
I am clearly a bit OCD about this.

You mean you clearly have a bit of OCD about this.

[Stuart Sears]

Post by Stuart Sears
I am clearly a bit OCD about this.
You mean you clearly have a bit of OCD about this.

I do, indeed. :)