Thread: Article or no article

Originally Posted by Oddo

Firstly, may I say that you are being insulting yourself there, IMO. I am just sticking up for the way people actually speak in my experience. I could write a long post on this, but to be honest, I know it's not worth it. You'll just say it's refusal to bow to "logic" which you have shown me, which incidentally, as I check through your posts again seems distinctly lacking. Also, unlike you have suggested "sounding odd" is important. It is a perfectly reasonable point, which I'm sure a foreigner wants to know about, as this is what marks their speech as different.

Not proof enough. All the flag does is identify you as a proud (why?) scion of an island race which has distinguished itself historically solely by displays of exactly the sort of mindless intransigence you exhibit here. Sometimes - when you're repelling an invasion, perhaps - it's a Good Thing; usually, it isn't. If we're discussing the English language, for example, and the way it is/should be spoken, your personal experience isn't enough (for all I know you move in deranged circles), just as living where I live puts me in no position to pass judgement on, say, loan words in Russian. Authorities are authorities; you and I are not authorities, but I, for better or worse, have spent some time studying them.

Regarding "whom", don't worry when to use it, if you're not sure just use "who", it's not a big deal.

Correct spelling and "it's" and "its" serve a useful purpose. Commas aren't quite as important;

I am glad that the word "whom" is disappearing. It serves no useful purpose.

That confuses it even further, because they both have adjectives. Maybe it's just something that has to be learned, like "the Ukraine" and "the Lebanon"....

There is NO SUCH THING as incorrect in English.

If you were simply ‘saying how people speak’, I’d have no problem; you’re actually dispensing wisdom – ill-informed, flawed, potentially harmful wisdom – and this is why, in a forum like this, you need to be taken to task, if not for your own sake then for the sake of others you might mislead. Nowt personal on my part.

You seem to have mistaken me for someone who respects your opinion.

The only mistake I made was to assume that you were capable of participation in a civilised dialogue.

OH SNAP

I'm a child of the eighties, sorry

Originally Posted by Линдзи

OH SNAP

I'm a child of the eighties, sorry

Thank God I only caught the tail end of that decade.

Originally Posted by joysof

Authorities are authorities; you and I are not authorities, but I, for better or worse, have spent some time studying them.

I remember the first clash between Oddo and joysof, Lindzi on this issue and I thought .. oh no.. this one's going to run and run.. and so it proved. See, at the heart of this there is a controversial issue. But both camps went all black-and-white on it, and then it got a bit personal (only a bit, aah how I love British politeness! )

Hmm now why did I quote that above? Because it's rather interesting .. I hope you don't mind me accusing you of a little bit of sophistry, or perhaps disingenuousness (damn nice word even if it's not quite right, give me a better one j, I know you can ). You're basically saying that we aren't authorities, but because I know about the authorities, I'm more of an authority than you..

(hmm who's still reading?)It seems to me that the concept of 'authority' is at the heart of the matter. Perhaps we could draw an analogy between languages and the internet. The internet was designed to have no single point of failure. The concept resonates with me because I spent several working years fretting over concepts like 'failover' and 'availability' (nuclear systems and IT systems).

Spoken languages were not consciously designed (well rarely has such an approach had an impact - who speaks Esperanto?), but evolved - but they evolved similarly, they have a lot of plasticity, redundancy ... In a way, when it comes to the spoken form of a language, there is no authority, and no single point of failure - although I know a lot of people woud disagree with even that.

But it gets a lot more controversial when we think about the written version of a language. We have dictionaries, style guides .. not to mention professors and teachers. But these authorities seem to, on the whole, bow to the will of the masses in that, once a speech pattern has been established for many years, it is (usually?) taken into the 'canon' of the written word. Maybe that 'bowing' is only a modern development (?).

Coming back to the internet - it has opened up writing to the masses in a previously-unheard of way. Going back into the middle ages, writing and indeed reading were the preserve of a ruling priest-caste (effectively), and inevitably the controls on not only the manner of writing but also on what was written were incredibly tight.

With the appearance of the internet, and forums such as this , it's quite possible that a convergence will occur between the spoken and written forms and that might well mean that such things as professors, dictionaries and style-guides will need a serious rethink..

Oh well just a few musings.

Originally Posted by joysof

The only mistake I made was to assume that you were capable of participation in a civilised dialogue.

Well I'm tired of this game of tennis. If it's impossible for either of us (by that I of course mean you) to concede defeat, since we cannot persuade eachother, I'd rather smack the ball right into your eye than waste my time contuing to hit it back and forth.

*strange metaphor finished*

You have some interesting points, waxwing.

A good bit of deserved applause for Waxwing!

Originally Posted by waxwing

Originally Posted by joysof

Authorities are authorities; you and I are not authorities, but I, for better or worse, have spent some time studying them.

Hmm now why did I quote that above? Because it's rather interesting .. I hope you don't mind me accusing you of a little bit of sophistry, or perhaps disingenuousness (damn nice word even if it's not quite right, give me a better one j, I know you can ). You're basically saying that we aren't authorities, but because I know about the authorities, I'm more of an authority than you..

Aye, disingenuousness is neither here or there. How about a famous paraphrase - I'm quite happy with 'liberal casuist' - for an appellation? Or even 'the Great Humanitarian', if you're feeling particularly generous. But really really really: unkind unkind unkind you are, свиристель. Yes, clearly the 'Trust me, I know better' play was a crude - if fact-based - one, but I was desperate: read back through the thread and you'll note (please!) that my fellow interlocutor is impervious to logic. Try as I did to pick apart his nonsense piece-by-piece, I was forever being cut up by the curve-balls of studied phillistinism. Oh yes. But I gave him Leavis, for God's sake - F.R. freaking Leavis - and I don't do that for everyone. Would that I'd thought of Ricky Powell first, though.

Oh how joysof is misunderstood! Too good for this world, I vouch.

Ah casuistry!
Sigh.. how I miss Martin Amis...
joysof, you couldn't be a chum and just kind of ..err.. write a book for me? I feel so impoverished down here among the heathens.


"cut up by the curve-balls of studied philistinism"??
Is that like 'the props and splints of artifice'? <assuming you're an Amis fan, bit of a big assumption I know..>

Originally Posted by joysof

Oh how joysof is misunderstood! Too good for this world, I vouch.

And his modesty knows no bounds. I would argue the points but I can't be bothered as I've broken something on my typing hand. Lucky you.

Joysof,

Why don’t you just think about people’s opinions (in rare cases even insults, e.g. a goat)? It is not a must to accept them.

Besides, it is interesting.

Good luck,
A.

Dove, even I know enough now not to capitalize Joysof's name.

Until joysof returns, I will answer in his absence:
(Mutters something about pedantry)

Hee hee hee hee hee. Hee.

Goats.

Also, heh @ Pravit. And heyyyyyy. I like joysof's pedantry. It saves me from having to be the pedant. Just when I'm itching to stab the screen with my red copyediting pen, joysof comes along and saves me with his superior pedant ways from perpetrating wanton violence upon my beautiful flatscreen monitor. Thank you, joysof. Thank you for your stalwart defense of the English language.

Three things I like on this forum:

1. Convenient usage
2. Lots of interesting discussions
3. Lindsay's “Hee”

Three things causing erotic attraction:

1. Naked legs
2. Long fair hair
3. Lidsay's “Hee”

Hee…

Originally Posted by Tu-160

Three things I like on this forum:

1. Convenient usage
2. Lots of interesting discussions
3. Lindsay's “Hee”

Three things causing erotic attraction:

1. Naked legs
2. Long fair hair
3. Lidsay's “Hee”

Hee…

Pravit,

Thank you.

........................

It's fine. You'll get used to something very soon. Be happy.

Just , Joysof.

Originally Posted by Dove

It's fine. You'll get used to something very soon. Be happy.

Dove, you put me in mind of James Mason as Humbert Humbert.

@waxwing: hate the novels, like the essays.

Originally Posted by Lara

Names of rivers go with the definite article: the Mississippi, the Amazon, the Volga, etc. Why then do names like Fountain River, Red River, Cherry Creek, Horse Creek, Sybille Creek, and Powder River appear without the article in serious books by a renowned publishing house? Does the fact that the words "red," "cherry," and "powder" have a meaning of their own and "Mississippi" etc. are only proper names have anything to do with the use of the article?

Lara

People seemed to go off topic, and I don't feel like reading 7 pages, so if this was posted already disregard it. The answer to your question is simple. You leave off the article becuase if you say "the REd River" it will sound as if the river is actuallt red. If you say "the Powder River" the image I get in my head is a river of powder. Leaving off the article kind of tells you that it's the NAME of the river and not the attribute. That is, "red" and 'powder" are not being used as adjective, but rather as names .

Lovely logic, rkdlnd, but it doesn't work in practice: think the Black Sea (isn't black) and the Yellow River (not yellow, at least not literally). As I said seven pages ago, there are no rules here.