| Author |
 Topic  |
|
ChocolateLady 
"Cecilia Tessieri, maître chocolatier"
Israel
|
 Posted - 04/10/2006 : 07:28:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It's not just wrong in some theoretical way, though. It's impossible to even pronounce the above review in a way that has any meaning.
Well, let's make it "Reeves: gay for pay" then.
Incidentally, whilst we are examining ungrammatical reviews for My Private Idaho, how about River: 'I da ho'. How does this make grammatical sense? what's da exactly, unless it's escaped from a foreign language?
And who among us could have committed this abuse of our mother tongue?
My feeling is that grammar doesn't have to be exact in these reviews, since sometimes even a purposeful misspelling can make the difference between a good review and one that doesn't make sense. As for "I da ho", well, it really is just a clever way of using slang/street-talk to make "I'm the whore" sound more like "Idaho". If we had to stick to perfect grammar and spelling, we'd have far less clever reviews.
(Just one person's opinion.)
|
 |
|
|
Salopian 
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 07:59:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
A word ending in "s" doesn't lose the ability to take on either a contracted "is," a possessive, or even a plural s (though the plural is commonly "es,".
No, the contracted "is" case does not apply to these cases. Yes, they can take a possessive or plural, but through articulatory necessity (as you essentially point out yourself by mentioning "-es") these endings add an extra syllable, pronounced "iz" (or perhaps sometimes "*z" where * represents the neutral vowel sound schwa). The word "is" can only be contracted to "'s" when that becomes part of the previous syllable. This is just defined by speech, not arbitrary rules. Thus people would say "Salopian's present", but they just wouldn't say "MguyX's present" (in the sense of a sentence). One can test this because the first can have the same intonation (depending on emphasis) for both "Salopian is present" and "the present of Salopian". However, when one tries to pronounce the second as genuinely meaning "MguyX is present", the intonation is quite different to pronouncing it as "the present of MguyX" - the "is" genuinely is more separate from the "MguyX", i.e. it's a separate word. |
Edited by - Salopian on 04/10/2006 08:30:17 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 07:59:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
A word ending in "s" doesn't lose the ability to take on either a contracted "is," a possessive, or even a plural s (though the plural is commonly "es,".
No, the contracted "is" case does not apply to these cases. Yes, they can take a possessive or plural, but through articulatory necessity (as you essentially point out yourself by mentioning "-es") these endings add an extra syllable, pronounced "iz" (or perhaps sometimes "*z" where * represents the neutral vowel sound schwa). The word "is" can only be contracted to "'s" when that becomes part of the previous syllable. This is just defined by speech, not arbitrary rules. Thus people would say "Salopian's present", but they just wouldn't say "MguyX's present" (in the sense of a sentence). One can test this because the first can have the same intonation (depending on emphasis) for both "Salopian is present" and "the present of Salopian". However, when one tries to pronounce the second as genuinely meaning "MguyX is present", the intonation is quite different to pronouncing it as "the present of MguyX" - the "is" genuinely is more separate from the "MguyX", i.e. it's a separate word. |
Edited by - Salopian on 04/10/2006 08:30:17 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 08:09:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Now, I cannot speak on standard UK English grammar, but in standard U.S. English grammar, "Jess's ball" is correct. Only certain words ending in "s" don't take an apostrophe "s," whether contracted or possessive -- like Congress, Jesus, Moses, and Penelope (alright, I threw the last one in just to clear the palate). Why? I think because one is the name of a group (i.e., a collective noun) ending in s, and there are already "double sibilant syllables" in the others, and, as for the latter two, the mouth abhors what sounds like hissing or stuttering.
I have known both American and British people favour just apostrophe after an "-s" even in the singular. I don't feel that the name of a group is part of the reason (though it is possible, especially as to why people are confused) and I am almost sure that "-s_s" is not. The reason that I have most often seen given (in cases where people are not insisting on no "-s's" at all) is that it applies to very established names - this would cover Jesus and Moses, and also Keats etc. However, I do not agree with this practice at all. I prefer the method of writing what is prounounced, so that a possessive which has an "-s"/"-z"/"-iz" added in speech gets "-'s" added on paper, and a possessive that has nothing added in speech gets "-'" added on paper. (This practice has the convenience of covering plurals without the need for additional rules.) Consequently, I prounounce the "-iz" in all cases (except "for goodness' sake") so that I can write it.  |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 08:09:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Now, I cannot speak on standard UK English grammar, but in standard U.S. English grammar, "Jess's ball" is correct. Only certain words ending in "s" don't take an apostrophe "s," whether contracted or possessive -- like Congress, Jesus, Moses, and Penelope (alright, I threw the last one in just to clear the palate). Why? I think because one is the name of a group (i.e., a collective noun) ending in s, and there are already "double sibilant syllables" in the others, and, as for the latter two, the mouth abhors what sounds like hissing or stuttering.
I have known both American and British people favour just apostrophe after an "-s" even in the singular. I don't feel that the name of a group is part of the reason (though it is possible, especially as to why people are confused) and I am almost sure that "-s_s" is not. The reason that I have most often seen given (in cases where people are not insisting on no "-s's" at all) is that it applies to very established names - this would cover Jesus and Moses, and also Keats etc. However, I do not agree with this practice at all. I prefer the method of writing what is prounounced, so that a possessive which has an "-s"/"-z"/"-iz" added in speech gets "-'s" added on paper, and a possessive that has nothing added in speech gets "-'" added on paper. (This practice has the convenience of covering plurals without the need for additional rules.) Consequently, I prounounce the "-iz" in all cases (except "for goodness' sake") so that I can write it. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 08:16:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warzonkey
I too am no expert on this matter, but I always thought that "apostrophe s" was acceptable in pluralising numbers and symbols - a way of separating the different character types. For example, to describe poker hand I may write "three 7's and a pair of 4's" which I think looks better than "three 7s and a pair of 4s" (although in reality I'd probably write it all in words, but you get my point).
This is officially sanctioned in some guides (including Eats, Shoots and Leaves, damn Lynne Truss), but I don't go in for it at all, as it seems completely pointless (i.e. "4s" and "1960s" etc. are perfectly clear). Truss also approves of "CD's" and "p's and q's".  This seems mad to me as "CDs" is fine and I would write "Ps and Qs". As far as I'm concerned, an apostrophe should always stand for omission. (This even ultimately applies to possessives, since "-'s" comes from one of the genders originally having the genitive ending "-es".) |
Edited by - Salopian on 04/10/2006 08:33:50 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 08:20:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Don't get me wrong: I do it too, because it just looks prettier.
quote:
Last time I checked (about 20 years ago), it wasn't cool. But, hey, grammar changes, and it might be cool now (with numbers and symbols only). 
Spoken grammar does change naturally, but punctuation only changes if people want it too. However, it is indeed much more common to write like that nowadays, but then so is writing "m8" and "ne1" etc. My mum even tries to text me using this nonsense. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 08:20:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
Don't get me wrong: I do it too, because it just looks prettier.
quote:
Last time I checked (about 20 years ago), it wasn't cool. But, hey, grammar changes, and it might be cool now (with numbers and symbols only).
Spoken grammar does change naturally, but punctuation only changes if people want it too. However, it is indeed much more common to write like that nowadays, but then so is writing "m8" and "ne1" etc. My mum even tries to text me using this nonsense. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 08:22:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Incidentally, whilst we are examining ungrammatical reviews for My Private Idaho, how about River: 'I da ho'. How does this make grammatical sense? what's da exactly, unless it's escaped from a foreign language?
And who among us could have committed this abuse of our mother tongue?
Like Choco said, this is reflecting a genuine mode of speech. I have got no objections to slang (so long as it does not take over standard English). |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 08:22:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Incidentally, whilst we are examining ungrammatical reviews for My Private Idaho, how about River: 'I da ho'. How does this make grammatical sense? what's da exactly, unless it's escaped from a foreign language?
And who among us could have committed this abuse of our mother tongue?
Like Choco said, this is reflecting a genuine mode of speech. I have got no objections to slang (so long as it does not take over standard English). |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 08:28:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
If we had to stick to perfect grammar and spelling, we'd have far less clever reviews.
I agree; if the case in question could be pronounced in any kind of slang, it could stand. (But it couldn't.  ) I think this is a bit like people deciding that they can write (unhyphenated) two-word surnames as one word; this is just a way of pretending that a five-word review is only four. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 08:28:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
If we had to stick to perfect grammar and spelling, we'd have far less clever reviews.
I agree; if the case in question could be pronounced in any kind of slang, it could stand. (But it couldn't. ) I think this is a bit like people deciding that they can write (unhyphenated) two-word surnames as one word; this is just a way of pretending that a five-word review is only four. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 08:33:31
|
| The worst cases of this are presenting "Da Vinci" as one word. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 08:33:31
|
| The worst cases of this are presenting "Da Vinci" as one word. |
|
|
|
BaftaBabe 
"Inventive hound applies science."
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 09:15:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The worst cases of this are presenting "Da Vinci" as one word.
Hmm ... Though I don't do that, and try to play by the rule, I've often thought that surnames of two parts -- La this, Di this, Da the other [LaDiDa: see what I did there ]-- might actually count as one word since it's someone's name and not the definite article. It's not like we're saying "the door." If we don't like DaVinci, I wonder whether referring to Da Vinci simply as Vinci would pass the MERP border? Okay - we'll file this under angels dancing on pinheads.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
