"'s and .'s
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: "'s and .'s |
|---|---|
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 04:42
Profile
quote:The infinitive isn't always called for, so you can get around this problem by cheating a little bit: "I expect the number of newbs will more than double." The second one is simpler - the placement of the adverb just seems a bit less satisfying: "I fail to understand completely the split infinitive rule." Or perhaps, borrowing from Latin syntax, the slightly more satisfying: "I fail to understand the split infinitive rule completely." EDIT: Perhaps it's lamentable, but I've always used an apostrophe with no following "s" for the singular possessive of words ending in "s." At some point I was told that this was the rule to follow for ancient or historical names (starting with the big JC), and I so just broadened the application because I opine that it looks cleaner, context always clarifies, and no one has called me out on it. EDIT 2: As for "comprise," Americans consistently treat it as though it's interchangeable with "compose," probably because it sounds more erudite, which makes it all the more laughable and pathetic when it's misused. The sad part is, almost no one but grammar snobs and English majors are aware of this fiction. [ Tuesday, April 25, 2006 04:55: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 06:41
Profile
Homepage
The split infinitive rule is stupid, I think. It is true that Latin-speakers, not having a phrasal infinitive, couldn't split their infinitives, but if they could have, they would have. They separated words that agreed with each other all the time (i.e. "Dominus malum verberat servum"). I also am opposed to the not-ending-sentences-with-prepositions rule, because prepositions have always been taken more closely with the verbs that govern them than with their objects (again, cf. Latin, in which the prepositions are prefixed on the verbs: adloquor). Also, in other Germanic languages (like, say, German), ending a sentence with a preposition is a rule, not an error: "Ich rufe meinen Bruder an." [ Tuesday, April 25, 2006 06:43: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5969
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 11:22
Profile
quote:Or you can (facetiously) excuse the splitting by saying that "more than double" is a single verb. :P -------------------- A C, an E-flat, and a G walk into the Tower of the Magi. Ambrin walks up to them and says, "Hey! It's the Triad!" Kelner snorts and says, "Pretty minor Triad if you ask me." Posts: 242 | Registered: Thursday, June 16 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 13:45
Profile
quote:But those aren't really prepositions in German; they're separable prefixes. Your example translates as something similar to "I called my brother up," which actually sounds worse (to me) than "I called up my brother." Prepositions always stay with their object and never go to the end, when they're modifiying an object in an embedded clause: *Mein Bruder, dem ich oft spreche mit, hat mich angerufen. This one is not correct. Oh, and I happen to dislike the rule in English as well; I'm just pointing out that the German equivalent does indeed match the prescriptive English one. [ Tuesday, April 25, 2006 13:56: Message edited by: wz. As ] -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 13:55
Profile
Homepage
quote:Since this is a grammar thread... I think the above phrase should use "whom": "My brother, whom I often speak with, called me." "Who" is used in nominative case and "whom" in accusative case. PS "My brother, with whom I often speak, called me." sounds better to me. Which word order is actually better in English? [ Tuesday, April 25, 2006 13:57: Message edited by: Zeviz ] -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 13:59
Profile
Well technically, if you're going to be precise about the who/whom distinction, you'd probably want to use "with whom" anyways. Using "whom . . . with" is being half-assed about which outmoded rules we're using and which we're tossing. -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 14:54
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, the "prepositions" that I was talking about in English aren't really prepositions either. There was a joke in a Naked Gun movie concerning a woman of questionable chastity saying, "Haven't you ever wanted to blow everyone in an entire stadium... up?" This, I think, illustrates the idea well: "to blow up" means something entirely different from "to blow," and moreover, it can be used intransitively: "The bomb blew up!" In that example, the "preposition" (so to speak) has no object and doesn't really function as a preposition at all: it functions to change the meaning of the verb (just as anrufen is different from rufen). Thus, these prepositions in English are more analogous to the prefixes in most other Indo-European languages (at least Latin, Greek, Polish, German, and Russian all have them) than they are to traditional prepositions. There are two reasons why one might end a sentence with a preposition: first, to take one of these non-prepositions more closely with a verb ("This is the pen which I write with"); and second, to sandwich the direct object between the verb and the non-preposition, as in the Naked Gun example. The former happens in analogy to all Indo-European languages, because "to write with [something]" and "to write [something]" are different, and the "with" is like one of those prefixes. The latter seems reasonable to me because sandwiching things to indicate that they should be taken closely with the surrounding elements is almost a law of Latin and Greek style, and it's very normal in spoken English. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 16:10
Profile
I guess we're just talking about two different things then. I always thought that the rule about ending sentences with prepositions referred to embedded clauses that modify a noun: that "The boy to whom I threw the ball" is better than "The boy I threw the ball to" What you're saying (I think) is that the rule states rather that "I want to blow up everyone in a stadium" is better than "I want to blow everyone in a stadium up" To me, the difference between "to whom..." and "who...to" sounds greater than that between "blow up..." and "blow...up," which is why I assumed the rule applied to the former case. Maybe the rule applies to both of them? Both prepositions of verbs, and prepositions of modifying embedded clauses. -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 5969
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 17:09
Profile
I think it does apply to everything. However, in many cases it can make things sound very stilted, which isn't surprising, considering that (ITLPIHTOTWCIIHCAIIRC– if that linguistics prof I heard that one time was correct, if I heard correctly, and if I recall correctly :D ) these rules were made up during the Renaissance by a bunch of guys who decided that since Latin is a great language, we should ape its word order– even though English didn't quite work that way, then or now. "Mom, what did you bring that book I don't like to be read to out of about Down Under up for?" [ Tuesday, April 25, 2006 17:10: Message edited by: Erika Maroonmark ] -------------------- A C, an E-flat, and a G walk into the Tower of the Magi. Ambrin walks up to them and says, "Hey! It's the Triad!" Kelner snorts and says, "Pretty minor Triad if you ask me." Posts: 242 | Registered: Thursday, June 16 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, April 25 2006 17:41
Profile
Homepage
We are talking about two things. Hence my statement that there are two reasons to end a sentence with a preposition. Technically, the rule applies to both, although most English teachers will only correct you for the "which... with" rule. There's no particular reason that either rule exists, though. There are reasons that some rules exist (to "do good" and to "do well" being two different things, for instance), but there is no particularly good reason that the preposition rule exists. It certainly sounds more formal to follow the rule than not to, though. EDIT: And this doesn't particularly ape Classical Latin's word order, which was very, very free anyway. It apes Medieval Latin's word order, which was pretty artificial to begin with. [ Tuesday, April 25, 2006 17:43: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2