# Forum Other Languages English for Russians - Изучаем английский язык Learn English - Грамматика, переводы, словарный запас  Article or no article

## 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

----------


## Oddo

It is indeed a strange phenomenon. I'm sure someone else will have a proper explanation, but untill then, think of this: 
The United Kingdom
Great Britain 
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"....

----------


## joysof

> It is indeed a strange phenomenon. I'm sure someone else will have a proper explanation, but untill then, think of this: 
> The United Kingdom
> Great Britain

 Or rather: *The* United Kingdom *of* Great Britain and Northern Ireland.   

> 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"....

 I would counsel against 'learning' either of these variants: they are both incorrect. To return to Lara's question, there isn't any satisfactory reason for the presence/lack of a definite article in these cases. Such things are a matter of convention: rivers have a 'the'; place names don't. Except the ones that do. This verily a nuisance is, even for native speakers.

----------


## Oddo

> 1)Or rather: *The* United Kingdom *of* Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 
> 2)I would counsel against 'learning' either of these variants: they are both incorrect.

 1)What? Why did you say that? Are you in some way suggesting that it is "incorrect" to say the United Kingdom? If you are then i have to point out that there is officially no "the." 
2)Have you ever heard someone say "Ukraine" without the "the?" It sounds stilted and strange. There is *NO SUCH THING* as incorrect in English. There are only conventions. Such as the conventions that every sentence starts with a capital letter and that "its" means belonging to it, whereas "it's" means it is or it has. With no official version of English, you cannot say that a perfectly normal phrase is incorrect. Trying to stop a language evolving of its own accord is pointless. Yes, it ought to be "Ukraine." Most maps say "Ukraine," but you would not hear it in conversation very often. I suppose you would also rearrange a perfectly good sentence in order not to split an infinitive? 
'Tis my language and I can do with it what I like. 
*edits in quote*  

> not trying to be rude just to help you. It would not be " I have borned in the Ukraine." but would be " I was born in the Ukraine."

 A native speaker using the "the" here. Notice if you look at the topic itself, the person underneath does not use it, but they are Ukranian themself, and like a DUtch person with "Holland" and "the Netherlands" are using it because they are using it how they feel it should be. I don't disagree that it should be "Ukraine," but it isn't. Live with it. 
*rant over*

----------


## Линдзи

According to AP style it's "Ukraine" not "The Ukraine," and as I have mentioned before, the AP stylebook is my Bible.  But in this case I can take or leave the "the."   

> There is NO SUCH THING as incorrect in English. There are only conventions.

 Respectfully disagree.  There are points of contention, but certain errors are *wrong*.  For example, confusing "its" and "it's."  There is a difference between common convention and illiteracy.  "The board of directors is..." and "the board of directors are..." may both be acceptable, depending on which side of the pond you originated, but "they is..." is still wrong.

----------


## waxwing

I believe the solution to this [the] Ukraine puzzle was identified by badmanners and I in this thread: http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtop ... ht=ukraine 
but that's probably because I'm full of it!   ::

----------


## bad manners

> I believe the solution to this [the] Ukraine puzzle was identified by badmanners and I in this thread: http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtop ... ht=ukraine 
> but that's probably because I'm full of it!

 If you're full of that, may I draw your attention to "identified by [...] I". How's that for you?

----------


## joysof

> Originally Posted by joysof  1)Or rather: *The* United Kingdom *of* Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 
> 2)I would counsel against 'learning' either of these variants: they are both incorrect.   1)What? Why did you say that? Are you in some way suggesting that it is "incorrect" to say the United Kingdom? If you are then i have to point out that there is officially no "the."

 Please read more carefully. It may help you to understand.   

> 2)Have you ever heard someone say "Ukraine" without the "the?" It sounds stilted and strange. There is NO SUCH THING as incorrect in English.

 It's people like you who'll have the language on its knees, Oddo. One reason why French is (for the most part) such a splendidly unadulterated tongue is the attentive proprietorship of its speakers: you won't find any mealy-mouthed Frenchman bleating on about the 'evolution of language' and other beige sentiments which only serve to cowtow to the ignorant and the idle. Creativity in language a wonderful thing is - no arguments here - but if All Shall Pass, then All Shall Pass. And we'll be even more swamped by illiteracy than we are now. Evil flourish good men nothing etc.

----------


## joysof

> I believe the solution to this [the] Ukraine puzzle was identified by badmanners and I in this thread: http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtop ... ht=ukraine 
> but that's probably because I'm full of it!

 Just to cut you down to size: 
'...identified by bad manners and *me*...'.  ::

----------


## Линдзи

joysof, you make me happy.  You're the only person I know who's a bigger language snob than I am.    ::

----------


## waxwing

hmm it seems that 'i'm full of it' was not interpreted in the self-effacing way intended .. 
OK, so how much do I have to pay for you not to tell my students?  ::  
(btw, lindzi, badmanners pointed it out as well, you know)

----------


## Линдзи

> (btw, lindzi, badmanners pointed it out as well, you know)

   ::   I was referring to joysof's post about French, not the posts correcting you.

----------


## Oddo

> Please read more carefully. It may help you to understand.

 Nope. I stil have no idea what you meant. 
BTW you cannot say French is unadulterated - it is Latin that has evolved Oh, sorry I'm not allowed to say that, am I? It is incorrect Latin. My mistake. 
And swamped by illiteracy? I believe the literacy rate is something like 101%. I wonder what the innumeracy rates are.. 
On the same not as my "incorrect Latin," I will not have the language on its knees. If change does that, then it's already been done, when English became English from Latin, old Gothic and Norman French and all the other influences.

----------


## waxwing

> Originally Posted by waxwing  (btw, lindzi, badmanners pointed it out as well, you know)      I was referring to joysof's post about French, not the posts correcting you.

 oops ..  sorry

----------


## Линдзи

Speaking of innumeracy, I don't think you can have a 101% literacy rate.   ::   
PS:  one of the definitions of "illiteracy" is "ignorance resulting from not reading."  I would say that poor grammar falls into that category.

----------


## Линдзи

> Originally Posted by Линдзи        Originally Posted by waxwing  (btw, lindzi, badmanners pointed it out as well, you know)      I was referring to joysof's post about French, not the posts correcting you.   oops ..  sorry

   ::   No problem

----------


## Линдзи

2 putt it anohter way oddo, wud U turn in a profesional paper writtn like this.  if no why Not?  u say there r only CONVENTIONS an this seem like convention 2 me.  well i sure C a lot of it on the net!1! ^_^ 
Seriously.  There are rights and wrongs in English.  They may change gradually over time, but they exist.  There is linguistic evolution and there is ignorance, and most of the language errors I see as a proofreader fall firmly into the second category.

----------


## joysof

> Originally Posted by joysof  Please read more carefully. It may help you to understand.   Nope. I stil have no idea what you meant.

 Well, I can't help that now, can I?   

> BTW you cannot say French is unadulterated - it is Latin that has evolved Oh, sorry I'm not allowed to say that, am I? It is incorrect Latin. My mistake...On the same not as my "incorrect Latin," I will not have the language on its knees. If change does that, then it's already been done, when English became English from Latin, old Gothic and Norman French and all the other influences.

 Young friend, you're confusing two entirely different things. Your rather simplistic 'Latin turned into French' premise is, in any case, entirely irrelevant: we're talking here about the defilement of a modern language, not the ebbs and flows - interesting though they are - of linguistic development. But if you're still convinced that we've come to where we have semantically on the basis of devil-may-care sloppiness, I suggest you do your reading: there's a world of difference between adulteration and time-bound synthesis. French has been enriched by the latter; it guards itself well against the former. 
@joysof: 'kowtow' is spelled with a 'k', you miserable pedant.

----------


## Oddo

What is your problem with me not understanding your UK comment? If it's so simple that it can be understood by reading it again, could someone more reasonable explain it to me please? 
Also, how exactly are changing a language gradually from one main source (in this case Latin) into others (IE French, Spanish, Italian etc.) and changing the resulting language slightly different? They are just on a different scale. You could probably not give an exact time when English became the language it is now, because it was a gradual process. I am glad that the word "whom" is disappearing. It serves no useful purpose. You may or may not disagree, but when people first started to say who when they "meant whom" I bet it was severely frowned upon. I suppose some people desperately clung on to "thou." Luckily it has gone. 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. 
@ Lindzi, poor-joke-detector not working?   ::  You say that there are rights and wrongs, but why? (Other than convention) There is nothing better about describing a small fluffy animal as a "mouse" than calling it a "sliff" or whatever. It's just what we have gradually come to call it. The reason I would not give a profesional paper writtn like that is that people have generally decided that it is professional and written. There is nothing specifically better about professional or forming the past with -ed, it's just what we do. It helps us communicate more easily. I would never say "you see them fings over there?" because it's not "right" (that is to say what most people agree is right,) not because there is somethign particularly wrong with it. 
Incidentally, is it "right" to put punctuation inside or outside a bracket? I'm never quite sure...

----------


## joysof

> I am glad that the word "whom" is disappearing. It serves no useful purpose. You may or may not disagree, but when people first started to say who when they "meant whom" I bet it was severely frowned upon.

 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.   

> 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.

----------


## Dove

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.

----------


## joysof

Dove, I find you distinctly creepy.

----------


## 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.

----------


## joysof

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

----------


## Oddo

> 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"*

----------


## joysof

> 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.

----------


## bad manners

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

----------


## Oddo

> 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* *J*oysof, 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.

----------


## Oddo

> 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.

----------


## Линдзи

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

----------


## 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.

----------


## joysof

> 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?

----------


## Dove

> 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.

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

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

   ::  ...   ::

----------


## Oddo

> 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.

----------


## joysof

> 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.   ::

----------


## Линдзи

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.

----------


## Kamion

> 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

----------


## Oddo

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]

----------


## Линдзи

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.   

> 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.

----------


## Jasper May

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?

----------


## Pravit

I also never say "whom" and I'm unsure when to use it. You use it like "wem" in German, don't you? So basically "with whom/to whom" but "who did he kill" and not "whom did he kill"? 
I've never heard anyone around this area say "whom" either. But we are rather uneducated down here.

----------


## Линдзи

> 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?

 That's the funny thing - I automatically use it after a preposition, so if it was "he gave genital herpes to whom?" I would defnitely use it.  But your construction, I'm not sure.  Now that I'm thinking about it, I can't figure out whether I'd automatically say it or not.  Hmm.   
But yeah, I do use "whom" in normal, unaffected speech, albeit possibly not every time it is called for grammatically.  As do quite a few people I know, now I that I think on it.  My friend Jess definitely does.  My dad does.   
Both of whom are of German families, now that I think about it.  Is there a parallel construction in German that would incline someone raised with German to properly use "who" and "whom"?

----------


## Линдзи

Who vs. Whom:  http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20021113.html

----------


## Jasper May

So according to that article, my construction would be the correct thing to say (as would 'whom did he kill'). But since it sounds unnatural and forced (who decides that?) it isn't used that often.

----------


## Pravit

DUDE! So you use it as a direct object too? So it's basically a non-nominative "who" then! Hah! I learned something new about English today!   

> Both of whom are of German families, now that I think about it.  Is there a parallel construction in German that would incline someone raised with German to properly use "who" and "whom"?

 Yeah, it's "wem" or "wen." At first I thought it was only "wem" but now that I know it's used for D.O. too, then also "wen." Ex: 
Wer hat das Buch bekommen?
Who received the book?
Wem hast du das Buch gegeben?
Whom did you give the book to?(or maybe "To whom did you give the book"? My English sucks).
Wen hast du mit dem Buch geschlagen?
Whom did you hit with the book? 
This is SO COOL! I'm using "whom"! YES! 
But don't you think this sounds kind of weird? "Whom are you with?"

----------


## Линдзи

> But don't you think this sounds kind of weird? "Whom are you with?"

 It sounds wrong because prepositions then cannot go at the end of sentences.  I would say "You are with whom?"  See?  Normal.    ::

----------


## Jasper May

Esattamente. Now I'm not going to say that prepositions can't ever be used at the end of a sentence, clause, whatever, but 'whom', when used with a preposition, _has_ to be preceded by that preposition. Or that's what I think.   

> Whom did you give the book to?(or maybe "To whom did you give the book"? My English sucks)

 What about "Whom did you give the book?"   ::

----------


## Pravit

Damn, my English has become quite sucky! And they say you know your language better after learning other ones...balderdash! Or, as I like to say, "Codswobble!"

----------


## Линдзи

> Esattamente. Now I'm not going to say that prepositions can't ever be used at the end of a sentence, clause, whatever, but 'whom', when used with a preposition, _has_ to be preceded by that preposition. Or that's what I think.        Originally Posted by Pravit  Whom did you give the book to?(or maybe "To whom did you give the book"? My English sucks)   What about "Whom did you give the book?"

 Indeed.  I have no major quibble with "Who did you give the book?" or even "Who did you give the book to?" in conversation, although I do think the correct variant with "whom" is more pleasing to the ear.  But if you are going to use whom, it must accompany its preposition.   
I would venture that "To whom did you give the book" is not exactly incorrect, but Jasper's "whom did you give the book" is a vastly preferable option; "You gave the book to whom?" would also be nice, in certain contexts. 
And I do think that "whom" is an absolute necessity in an sort of formal writing.  There are any number of things that I will say in casual conversation or when, for example, posting on a message board, that I would never put in a document meant for publication or formal interaction.  Improper use of who/whom is one of those things.  It just looks sloppy.  And like it or not, your writing DOES give an impression about you.

----------


## Линдзи

> Damn, my English has become quite sucky! And they say you know your language better after learning other ones...balderdash! Or, as I like to say, "Codswobble!"

 Pravit, your English is fine.  Jeeeeeez. 
And your punctuation is divine.  I do appreciate some good punctuation, and you, my good sir, have it in spades.

----------


## Pravit

Oh, I'm flattered! But be a love, dear cousin, and explain to me if the comma must really ALWAYS go inside the quotation marks! I would pull out some old English essays if I could, but I believe I schmeissed them all weg in a bit of jubilee that I finished school. Perhaps when you're listing things that need to go in quotation marks, or the sentence dictates a comma when you're quoting something?

----------


## Jasper May

Oo, I do love the word "codswobble", I do. (Do I sound like a Northern granny like this?)

----------


## joysof

> surely you must have nothing useful to do in life.

 Splendid. Finally we agree on something.

----------


## bad manners

> But don't you think this sounds kind of weird? "Whom are you with?"

 Depends on whom you ask about it.

----------


## Oddo

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

 @ Lindzi
I don't deny you have a point. but I *don't* care about grammar. If it doesn't seem natural, there's no point losing sleep over it. 
@ the others
Regarding "whom", don't worry when to use it, if you're not sure just use "who", it's not a big deal. If you're writing an English essay try to use "whom" though.

----------


## Tu-160

What of this can be considered proper or improper: 
Whom are you talking with?
Who are you talking with?
Whom are you talking to?
Who are you talking to?

----------


## Линдзи

> What of this can be considered proper or improper: 
> Whom are you talking with?
> Who are you talking with?
> Whom are you talking to?
> Who are you talking to?

 "Who are you talking with" and "Who are you talking to" are both conversational although _technically_ unsound.  Correct variants would be "To whom are you talking?" "You are talking to whom?"  "With whom are you talking?" and "You're talking with whom?"  The preposition and the "whom" must go together.

----------


## Линдзи

> @ the others
> Regarding "whom", don't worry when to use it, if you're not sure just use "who", it's not a big deal. If you're writing an English essay try to use "whom" though.

 Yeah, and, like, if you can't remember how to properly use commas, just forget 'em.  For real, just do whatever you feel like doing.  And don't bother to spell anything correctly, either.  And by all means, mix up the word "its" and "it's."  Who can be expected to keep all that straight? It's not a big deal.  Oddo doesn't care, so no employer or professor ever will.

----------


## Oddo

> Originally Posted by Oddo  @ the others
> Regarding "whom", don't worry when to use it, if you're not sure just use "who", it's not a big deal. If you're writing an English essay try to use "whom" though.   Yeah, and, like, if you can't remember how to properly use commas, just forget 'em.  For real, just do whatever you feel like doing.  And don't bother to spell anything correctly, either.  And by all means, mix up the word "its" and "it's."  Who can be expected to keep all that straight? It's not a big deal.  Oddo doesn't care, so no employer or professor ever will.

 Oh, pardon me: 
...when to use it; if you're... 
Correct spelling and "it's" and "its" serve a useful purpose. Commas aren't quite as important; if you use them too much (i.e. when not necessary) then it doesn't make it hard to understand, whereas too few commas make a sentence unreadable. 
If you could be bothered to read my post, you might notice that I said 
"If you're writing an English essay try to use "whom" though." 
In case any non-natives are wondering, I mean that as an example, not the only time when *it's* worth using "whom".

----------


## Линдзи

This just in, guys:  commas aren't that important. 
What is important about commas is not, in fact, PROPERLY using them, but how much you use them.  Use them moderately.  If you think you have too many in a sentence, take a few out.  If you've got a sentence with none in, stick a few in.   It's all about the numbers. 
Oddo, would you care to tell us how many commas per word (CPW) are approprate in a text?  I would hate to overuse or underuse the poor comma.  Here all along I've been putting them where they were called for by the rules of punctuation, but I'll be sure to stop that immediately.

----------


## Линдзи

> Oh, I'm flattered! But be a love, dear cousin, and explain to me if the comma must really ALWAYS go inside the quotation marks! I would pull out some old English essays if I could, but I believe I schmeissed them all weg in a bit of jubilee that I finished school. Perhaps when you're listing things that need to go in quotation marks, or the sentence dictates a comma when you're quoting something?

 Mind you, I believe that overseas, conventions differ.  I myself go by the AP style guide, as I am a proto-journalist.  Here is what it has to say on the subject:   

> *The period and the comma always go within the quotation marks.
> *The dash, the semicolon, the question mark and the exclamation point go within the quotation when they apply to the quoted matter only.  They go outside when they apply to the whole sentence.

 The second bullet point there is a little tricky, but I shall illustrate with a couple of examples. 
Correct:  Pravit asked, "When does one use a comma?"
Correct:  Did Oddo say "fie on proper comma usage"? 
Does that make sense?

----------


## Pravit

It does indeed, cousin Lindsay, but what I meant is the comma at the end of the quoted matter, for example "Somebody said something here", "somebody said something else here." Should it be "Somebody said something here," and "somebody said something else here" or is it fine the first way? I think the second way looks a bit odd but I remember being docked for writing it the first way.

----------


## Линдзи

In American standard punctuation, the comma goes inside.  For example: 
Pravit said, "I desire to learn more about punctuation," to which I responded, "I think that is an admirable goal."

----------


## Pravit

Even in such a situation? 
The men said "this," "something else," and "that."

----------


## Линдзи

> Even in such a situation? 
> The men said "this," "something else," and "that."

 The comma always goes inside, yep.

----------


## Pravit

You know, it's a pity we never learned about this or the use of "whom" in English class!

----------


## bad manners

> Originally Posted by Pravit  Even in such a situation? 
> The men said "this," "something else," and "that."   The comma always goes inside, yep.

 Actually _this_ topic is controversial. I even seem to recall that BrE and AmE have it differently. Either way, commas rarely make sense inside quotes, _logically_.

----------


## Линдзи

[quote=bad manners] 

> Originally Posted by Pravit  Even in such a situation? 
> The men said "this," "something else," and "that."   The comma always goes inside, yep.

 Actually _this_ topic is controversial. I even seem to recall that BrE and AmE have it differently. Either way, commas rarely make sense inside quotes, _logically_.[/quote:1nmgkij2] 
Yeah, as I said, there's different standards depending on the country.  As Pravit and I are both in the US, and Pravit's going to college in the US, I gave him US standard, specifically AP, although most US stylebooks agree on this one.  S'all.

----------


## joysof

[quote=bad manners] 

> Originally Posted by Pravit  Even in such a situation? 
> The men said "this," "something else," and "that."   The comma always goes inside, yep.

 Actually _this_ topic is controversial. I even seem to recall that BrE and AmE have it differently. Either way, commas rarely make sense inside quotes, _logically_.[/quote:3abladuk] 
Mmm, controversial indeed. If memory serves, standard British usage has always been to place commas outside quotation marks when they do not constitute part of the quotation itself. No doubt because this method is one into which I was indoctrinated at school, any other usage would strike me as odd. Or, at least, I always thought it would. 
However, from today's Guardian:  _"I hope this is a lesson to advertising agencies and multinationals that they can unwittingly offend black Britons. In this case they paid scant regard to our concerns when we first contacted them," he added. 
"I am happy to inform the nation that the president has invited me to form the next government," Mr Singh told reporters as he left the meeting._ 
I have never noticed this before. 
(The French, by the way, stick to their Old World guns. From Le Monde: 
[i]Le vice-ministre de la d

----------


## Pravit

Well, I knew from various novels that if someone is talking, then it looks like this:
"That's terrible," he said. 
But I thought that if you're listing several things in quotation marks it would make more sense to put the comma outside. Oh well.

----------


## bad manners

For a totally different reason. When quoting direct speech, you don't just throw in a comma, you replace a period with a comma because a period would really look awkward inside a sentence: 
Somebody says: "it was terrible." (Observe the period -- end of sentence in general, end of the sentence in the direct speech).
Somebody says: "it was terrible!"
"It was terrible," somebody says. (You can't have a period in there, can you?)
"It was terrible!" somebody says. (Exclamation is not changed.)

----------


## Линдзи

> Well, I knew from various novels that if someone is talking, then it looks like this:
> "That's terrible," he said. 
> But I thought that if you're listing several things in quotation marks it would make more sense to put the comma outside. Oh well.

 It probably would make more sense, yes.  However, punctuation is a capricious mistress.  There may be a good reason for it; if I find it out, I'll let you know.

----------


## Jasper May

Also, now were on the subject of controversial grammatical issues: the conjunctive/subjunctive in English. In what cases is it used? In the same cases as in French (desire, hypothetical etc.)? I know it's correct to say 'I demanded that he be punished', but for some reason 'I asked that he be punished' looks silly. Any thoughts?

----------


## Pravit

It doesn't have anything to do with grammar, I think, it just sounds silly, because if you're in the position to punish somebody, you're not going to _ask_ for him to be punished. You're going to _demand_ it, dammit!  
However, say if there was a murder, the family of the murdered victim could "ask" that the murderer be punished somehow. I also think that if there is a brother and a sister, and the brother does something mean, the sister can "ask" the parents for the brother to be punished.

----------


## Jasper May

Ok, stupid example. But in some cases, even if it makes sense, I think the sunjunctive is extremely ugly. Real examples, not written by me: 
She was _concerced_ that we not *be* brought up as "cheap" Irish.
He was _determined_ that the film *be* authentic.
I think it is very _critical_ that Bill Bradley *address* those issues.
I must _emphasize_ the extreme sensitivity of this information and *that* it not leave this room. 
Ugly, ugly, ugly. Illiterate, even. Especially the last, when the subjunctive is so far removed from the verb governing it, you forget it was there at all.  
Mr. joysof and Lindzi, our resident authorities on British resp. American grammar, could you tell me whether those are plain wrong, right but unnatural, or perfectly normal?  
For the record, I do understand the concept of the subjunctive. I'm only asking if it really is used in the cases shown above.

----------


## joysof

Neglect the subjunctive? _Heaven forbid!_ 
All of your examples, ugly though you may find them, are entirely acceptable as far as I am concerned. There is, however, another divergence here between American and British English as far as usage patterns are concerned: I, a callow sort-of-Englisher, would tend to shove in a 'should' ('She was concerned that we *should* not be brought up as "cheap" Irish'; 'I must emphasize the extreme sensitivity of this information and that it *should* not leave this room.'), meaning, technically speaking, that the subjunctive element of the verb would fall by the wayside; as I remember, the US tendency is reflected by your examples as they stand. If so, this would, in fact, appear to be an instance in which the brash colonials are more faithful to the former style than their staid old cousins.

----------


## Jasper May

Ah, see, I thought there may be a difference between UK/US usage. I also subconciously added 'should'. Thank you.

----------


## Oddo

> She was _concerced_ that we not *be* brought up as "cheap" Irish.
> He was _determined_ that the film *be* authentic.
> I think it is very _critical_ that Bill Bradley *address* those issues.
> I must _emphasize_ the extreme sensitivity of this information and *that* it not leave this room.

 The last two sound odd. In speech, almost everyone would just say "addresses" - no Lindzi, joysof, I don't want an explanation of why that's wrong; I know fine well, but it sounds better. In the last one it can be made natural with a "must." This keeps the meaning better than "should." 
@Lindzi in regards to commas: Of course, if one is writing something important, then it would be better if commas were used correctly, but I honestly don't think anyone (except you professional pedants!) would notice if I wrote: 
"I am the king here, it is my choice whether or not you die."

----------


## joysof

> Originally Posted by Jasper May  She was _concerced_ that we not *be* brought up as "cheap" Irish.
> He was _determined_ that the film *be* authentic.
> I think it is very _critical_ that Bill Bradley *address* those issues.
> I must _emphasize_ the extreme sensitivity of this information and *that* it not leave this room.   The last two sound odd. In speech, almost everyone would just say "addresses" - no Lindzi, joysof, I don't want an explanation of why that's wrong; I know fine well, but it sounds better. In the last one it can be made natural with a "must." This keeps the meaning better than "should."

 Bizarre. Just bizarre. Throughout this thread, contributors - you apart - have done their best to approach the issue as sensibly and empirically as possible, regardless of rights, wrongs and the differences they may have: Линдзи has cited the AP style-guide; I've given you Le Monde, USAToday and Lord Chesterfield, for Christ's sake; others have made their contributions/asked questions when they have seen fit. And what have we had from you? ‘Sounds odd…my language...robots…pedants’ and other dark mutterings which do you no credit whatsoever. Nobody, Oddo, has a divine right to win an argument, but you have done absolutely _nothing_ to make your case beyond saying what you think and saying it in a way which has often bordered on the insulting. When I talk about intellectual maturity and your lack of it, *this* is what I mean.

----------


## 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. 
Your post was unwelcome, as you can tell from my previous post. And, as I'm sure you realise, I will not take it at all seriously, it's the same recycled arguments as before. Repetition will not persuade me. 
My arguments may or may not "do me no credit." Do you really think I care what you think about them? I'm just saying how people around me speak. I don't think I need to offer more proof than my opinion - after all that is all i am gving here. Anyone can judge for themself. My proof is simply the flag next to my name.

----------


## joysof

> 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.

----------


## Oddo

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

----------


## joysof

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

----------


## Линдзи

OH SNAP   ::    I'm a child of the eighties, sorry

----------


## Tambakis

> OH SNAP     I'm a child of the eighties, sorry

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

----------


## waxwing

> 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.

----------


## Oddo

> 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.

----------


## Pravit

A good bit of deserved applause for Waxwing!

----------


## joysof

> 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.

----------


## waxwing

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..>

----------


## Oddo

> 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.

----------


## Dove

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.

----------


## Pravit

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)

----------


## Линдзи

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.

----------


## 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…  ::

----------


## Линдзи

> 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…

   ::

----------


## Dove

Pravit, 
Thank you.   ::   
........................ 
It's fine. You'll get used to *something* very soon. Be happy.  
Just   :: , Joysof.

----------


## joysof

> 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.

----------


## rkdlnd

> 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 .

----------


## joysof

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.

----------

