Thread: Article or no article

Lara, you may consult one of the grammar books published by Longman. It is said that there are always exceptions.

According to dictionary,
(the) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(the) United States of America

joysof is well mean.

I do believe I will learn a lot from him (You are a male, right?). This time his messages are too long, I only read part of them.

Dove, I find you distinctly creepy.

Dove, joysof is an awesome man.

The only thing I don't like about him is his new icon. I liked that funny guy he had before better.

Henry Kelly is not funny. He's deadly serious.

Originally Posted by joysof

Whatever gives you the idea that such slovenliness is no longer 'severely frowned upon'? Even at http://www.usatoday.com (and this, correct me if I’m wrong, is not an organ renowned for its high-flown style), 'whom' is largely retained; and if I had littered my fourth-year dissertation with non-nominative 'whos', I'd have been quite rightly brought to book for it. 'Whom' is very much alive in serious (and semi-serious) circles, thank Christ. Bear in mind, also, that this discussion is about the written language, which, in English as much as in Russian, has its own well-tested conventions (you seem to think, incidentally, that 'convention' means 'something you're allowed to break/ignore/tread all over whenever the mood takes you'. Not strictly the case, unless you're an American military guard and the convention concerned is named after a certain lakeside city of note). Colloquial speech is a completely different animal: your 'say' has no place here.

'Academics who Kuntz shared his findings with and who his researches had brought financial benefit to were evidently bound to draw different conclusions about those who he condemned'

Look at the word order, too. If you, as a discerning, well-educated sort, would be willing put up with this sort of nonsense, then you and your generation will have the language on its knees, however splendidly libertarian your intentions. Such usage is not just ugly, it obscures meaning and - here comes the cliche - it's the thin end of a horrible wedge.

The only difference between that and new changes is that people like you don't like them because they grew up taught that they were wrong.

No. I don't like them because I have a well-developed critical faculty.

‘I had long lamented, that we had no lawful standard of our language set up, for those to repair to, who might choose to speak and write it grammatically and correctly . . . The time for discrimination seems to be now come. Toleration, adoption, and naturalization, have run their lengths. Good order and authority are now necessary. But where shall we find them, and at the same time the obedience due to them? We must have recourse to the old Roman expedient in times of confusion, and choose a Dictator.’

And I'm with Lord Chesterfield. Revol, revol.

[quote:tkwnhv0r]Incidentally, is it "right" to put punctuation inside or outside a bracket? I'm never quite sure...

Externally-relevant punctuation goes outside. But, hey, you do what you like with it, kid. Why bother with the parenthesis at all? Or the inverted commas, for that matter? Orspacesbetweenthewords? You're just a faceless 'droid if you do, after all. Cut loose, man: we're all little Ferlinghettis and the world is ours. Oh yes.[/quote:tkwnhv0r]

1) When I said that it was severely frowned upon at first, I meant by human beings, not you robot types who can't take change because you're obviously always right. You can never understand changes.

2) Why do you care that "whom" is disappearing? What possible purpose does it serve, other than to confuse foreigners?

3) No, I do not think conventions are there to be broken when I feel like. I simply feel that pointless ones should be removed. Useful conventions which hold our language together, such as spelling "cat" "c" "a" "t" rather than "d" "o" "g," I do not think should be ignored.

4) No, I see nothing wrong with your quote about Kuntz. I don't believe your paranoid opinion that that makes me about to destroy the language.

5) Explain just how preserving a language exactly is a "well-developed critical faculty" and how this is any different to saying we should all be speaking Latin or the old Gothic languages.

6) Parenthesis (that's bracket usage to speakers of English) serves a useful purpose, as I just demonstrated. The same applies to using inverted commas and leaving gaps between words. The same does not apply to keeping infinitives unsplit and using "whom."

7) Stop trying to suggest I am a radical, trying to undermine all the conventions. You can tell from my posts this is limited to only one or two points of English grammar that I object to.

*edits out uncapitalised "I"*

Originally Posted by Oddo

2) Why do you care that "whom" is disappearing? What possible purpose does it serve, other than to confuse foreigners?

Sigh. It has a well-defined purpose, which I went to some lengths to illustrate to you. Your failure to respond to any of these lengths suggests to me that you have nothing more of interest to say.

3) No, I do not think conventions are there to be broken when I feel like. I simply feel that pointless ones should be removed. Useful conventions which hold our language together, such as spelling "cat" "c" "a" "t" rather than "d" "o" "g," I do not think should be ignored.

And who decides? Your good self, I imagine.

4) No, I see nothing wrong with your quote about Kuntz. I don't believe your paranoid opinion that that makes me about to destroy the language.

In which case, we'd better not discuss it further. No point trying to strap a sou'wester to a goat, is there? The Kuntz sentence is written in English so bad it made me cringe to invent it. Perhaps this isn't your first language; certainly, you seem to have difficulties with the subtleties.

5) Explain just how preserving a language exactly is a "well-developed critical faculty" and how this is any different to saying we should all be speaking Latin or the old Gothic languages.

This sentence doesn't make sense. I think you have misunderstood the word 'faculty' in this context.

6) Parenthesis (that's bracket usage to speakers of English) serves a useful purpose, as I just demonstrated. The same applies to using inverted commas and leaving gaps between words. The same does not apply to keeping infinitives unsplit and using "whom."

Thanking you, Mr. Leavis. We're dispensing with the rules we don't understand, are we? Splendid. Will there be anything else? Perhaps, while you're at it, you'd like to replace Bridge and the Kantian Dialectic with Pontoon and Jackie Collins novels? An intellectual yard-sale. Oy, gavult.

7) Stop trying to suggest I am a radical,

You're nowhere near interesting enough to be a radical.

1) When I said that it was severely frowned upon at first, I meant by human beings, not you robot types who can't take change because you're obviously always right. You can never understand changes.

Just how old are you, actually? Twelve-ish, judging by the crude sarcasm/petulance/resistance to logic of the above. I could deal with this, but, petrified as I am at the thought of turning into one of those people who argue with children and idiots on the Internet, I would rather not. Consider yourself someone with whom I no longer engage on serious issues.

No, no, no. Non. "Consider yourself someone whom I no longer engage on serious issues with."

Originally Posted by joysof

Sigh. It has a well-defined purpose, which I went to some lengths to illustrate to you. Your failure to respond to any of these lengths suggests to me that you have nothing more of interest to say.

And who decides? Your good self, I imagine.

In which case, we'd better not discuss it further. No point trying to strap a sou'wester to a goat, is there? The Kuntz sentence is written in English so bad it made me cringe to invent it. Perhaps this isn't your first language; certainly, you seem to have difficulties with the subtleties.

This sentence doesn't make sense. I think you have misunderstood the word 'faculty' in this context.

Thanking you, Mr. Leavis. We're dispensing with the rules we don't understand, are we? Splendid. Will there be anything else? Perhaps, while you're at it, you'd like to replace Bridge and the Kantian Dialectic with Pontoon and Jackie Collins novels? An intellectual yard-sale. Oy, gavult.

Just how old are you, actually? Twelve-ish, judging by the crude sarcasm/petulance/resistance to logic of the above. I could deal with this, but, petrified as I am at the thought of turning into one of those people who argue with children and idiots on the Internet, I would rather not. Consider yourself someone with whom I no longer engage on serious issues.

The hypocrisy of the first section of the quote amuses me.

Yes, I do decide myself. Who else is going to decide how I speak? I don't need other people to tell me how to speak my own language.

Perhaps instead of always saying I have misunderstood something, then continuing onto your next point, you could explain what it means in its context. Surely you'd love to oblige because you are so concerned about the state of English.

I understand the rules to which you refer. I simply consider them pointless, as I have explained several times.

I wonder what the logic to which you refer is...

*ultimate insult* Joysof, you are already that person who argues with children over the internet, as this dicussion shows.

Again, it's hypocrisy when you say that I reply like a twelve-year-old. Your bold "whom" leads me to suspect that you are the child here.

Originally Posted by joysof

The Kuntz sentence is written in English so bad it made me cringe to invent it.

Was that double-meaning intentional? If not you could have avoided using the word "invent" and chosen the far-less-snobby "find" - speaking in Latin will not impress me, nor I suspect many others.

Wow. A world where the word "invent" is snobby is a world I don't want to live in.

I had never heard anyone say "invent" to mean "find" until he said it. I understood straight away because I've learnt Latin for a bit more than a year, but it seemed ridiculous to me, when "find" is just as good, and people use it all the time.

Originally Posted by Oddo

I had never heard anyone say "invent" to mean "find" until he said it. I understood straight away because I've learnt Latin for a bit more than a year, but it seemed ridiculous to me, when "find" is just as good, and people use it all the time.

Gah. I promised myself I'd stay away from these pointlessnesses, but - hey - I'm still unemployed, you're still making no sense whatsoever, and the weather's gone off again, so I'll make one little addendum (apologies for the Latin), just to save you from fretting further over the meaning of simple words:

I used ''invent'' because I meant, well, ''invent'': I made up (contrived, fabricated - but a good old phrasal verb will do) the quote. I think, in fact, that your Latin is confusing you: invenio, invenire does indeed mean 'to find', but this meaning, as far as I am aware, does not translate into modern English. With me?

And perhaps the sparring could stop here?

Originally Posted by joysof

Dove, I find you distinctly creepy.

Originally Posted by Pravit

Dove, joysof is an awesome man.
The only thing I don't like about him is his new icon. I liked that funny guy he had before better.

Originally Posted by joysof

Henry Kelly is not funny. He's deadly serious.

I appreciate your honesty.
Just don't let your uniqueness bring you troubles.

Originally Posted by joysof

Just how old are you, actually? Twelve-ish,

...

Originally Posted by joysof

I used ''invent'' because I meant, well, ''invent'': I made up (contrived, fabricated - but a good old phrasal verb will do) the quote. quote]

Well then, it doesn't have much relevance if you just invented it. I assumed you meant "find" because you like saying bizarre things just to confuse people. Things I don't understand in what you say tend to be references to people who I have never heard of, such as:

Thanking you, Mr. Leavis

Or perhaps that's not a real person, it's just supposed to be sarcastic/funny in some way my tiny brain is incapable of grasping.

Or idioms which I have never heard people use, such as:

[quote:236pdxk6]No point trying to strap a sou'wester to a goat, is there?

[/quote:236pdxk6]

I am not going to stop the sparring so long as you respond to it. You wanted to stop before, supposedly, but you carried on. If you really don't want to carry on just leave it aaaaaht and ignore me.

Originally Posted by Oddo

Well then, it doesn't have much relevance if you just invented it. I assumed you meant "find" because you like saying bizarre things just to confuse people.

That I invented it as an example of horrible usage, and that you were nonetheless happy with it as written English. makes it, for me at least, even more relevant than if I had dredged it up from somewhere.

Or perhaps that's not a real person, it's just supposed to be sarcastic/funny in some way my tiny brain is incapable of grasping.

For your edification:

http://www.yourencyclopedia.net/F._R._Leavis


The point I was trying to make (clearly subtlety doesn't sit well with you) was that, whilst your opinions are doubtless valid, others - like F.R., for example - are perhaps better qualified to arbitrate in the debate about what is necessary and unnecessary as far as English grammar is concerned. Years of experience, careful study etc.

Or idioms which I have never heard people use

Well, I thought it was a funny image.

Any idiom involving goats is automatically funny.

My useless two cents? No one should have to dumb-down their language unless they're a kindergarden teacher. There's nothing wrong with sounding intelligent, despite what the all-to-prevalent culture of anti-intellectualism suggests.

My useless two cents? No one should have to dumb-down their language unless they're a kindergarden teacher. There's nothing wrong with sounding intelligent, despite what the all-to-prevalent culture of anti-intellectualism suggests.

Amen to that. Why do we have to simplify things all the time? There is nothing wrong with having to think sometimes. It doesn

I wholeheartedly agree, but complexity for complexity's sake is pointless. No, joysof, you're right, subtlety doesn't sit well with me. I'd rather you just argued on the basis of your point rather than using unnecessarily complex language to hide your ideas.

I know that acedmics are better qualified than me to comment on the best usage of English, but I know fine well that in speech and in normal writing (i.e. not in an important letter or similar) people do not generally use "whom" anymore. It is completely up to me whether I use whom. If you care, then surely you must have nothing useful to do in life.[/quote]

Granted, I work in communications, but most everyone I know uses "whom" even in informal emails. Now that I think about it, most of my friends even use it in speech, at least when following the word "to." (i.e. "He gave genital herpes TO WHOM?!") So I would venture to say that "whom" is not dead in my neck of the woods.

joysof does, on occasion, bust out rather arcane references, but I think it would be a stretch to say that his LANGUAGE is too complex to be easily understood. The events, places and people to which he refers? Possibly. His language? No.

And frankly, I'm not about to request that he dumb down his writing to make others feel more comfortable. His use of English is fine thing to behold.

Originally Posted by Oddo

If you care, then surely you must have nothing useful to do in life.

I would daresay you are posting about this far too much to accuse someone ELSE of caring too much about grammar.

I never say 'whom', my family never says 'whom', no-one I know ever says 'whom'. Appears I live in rather anti-intellectual surroundings.

Btw, Lindzi, would you say 'WHOM did he give genital herpes?' in normal speech?