Women don't like rain. It resets their faces to the factory settings.
Women don't like rain. It resets their faces to the
factory settings. ;-)
On one occasion while I was visiting my mother in hospital I noticed that her room mate seemed to be grumbling to herself. My
mother confided that.. having been scheduled for surgery the same
day... this woman got up early, spent at least an hour applying
makeup & painting her nails & whatnot, and was informed as soon as
their nurse entered the room that she would have to revert to the factory settings. When she complained to my mother, my mother answered "How would the doctor know if you were turning blue with
that stuff on?" :-))
My mother answered her that the doctor would not know if she was turning blue with that stuff on.
My mother answered her that the doctor would not know if she was
turning blue with that stuff on.
or ordered slightly differently...
My mother answered her that with that stuff on, the doctor would
not know if she was turning blue.
i make this distinction because of the question is she turning blue /because/ of the stuff or is the stuff simply hiding the possible blueness...
i make this distinction because of the question is she turning blue
/because/ of the stuff or is the stuff simply hiding the possible
blueness...
Well, in this case we should change the sentence the original sentence, too.
When she complained to my mother, my mother answered
"How would the doctor know if you were turning blue
with that stuff on?" :-))
Ahem ;), besides the absence of the comma before the
quotation marks, I wanna remark again that inside of
those marks there is the direct speech. So,
theoretically, it should be either
My mother answered, "How will the doctor know if you
are turning blue with that stuff on?"
or (as the indirect speech)
My mother answered her that the doctor would not know
if she was turning blue with that stuff on.
My mother answered her that the doctor would not know
if she was turning blue with that stuff on.
or ordered slightly differently...
My mother answered her that with that stuff on, the
doctor would not know if she was turning blue.
i make this distinction because of the question is she
turning blue /because/ of the stuff or is the stuff
simply hiding the possible blueness...
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+ * Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA
(1:153/716)
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Wits' End, Vancouver CANADA (1:153/716)
When she complained to my mother, my mother answered
"How would the doctor know if you were turning blue
with that stuff on?"
Ahem ;), besides the absence of the comma before the
quotation marks, I wanna remark again that inside of
those marks there is the direct speech. So,
theoretically, it should be either
My mother answered, "How will the doctor know if you
are turning blue with that stuff on?"
When she complained to my mother, my mother answered "How would
the doctor know if you were turning blue with that stuff on?"
Ahem ;), besides the absence of the comma before the quotation
marks, I wanna remark again that inside of those marks there is
the direct speech. So, theoretically, it should be either
My mother answered, "How will the doctor know if you are turning
blue with that stuff on?"
But Ardith's grammar is immaculate and only right for this
hypothetical sitatuation, whereas your use of "wanna" and "inside
of" can make any literate person's nails turn blue :-)
whereas your use of "wanna" and "inside of" can make90% of people use informal speech. It makes them not
any literate person's nails turn blue :-)
look too green and blue. ;-)
Futher more
Futher moreSince Alexander so meticulously corrects my typos I will
anticipate him and correct this one myself: furhtermore.
I write:
Futher more
Since Alexander so meticulously corrects my typos I will
anticipate him and correct this one myself: furhtermore.
whereas your use of "wanna" and "inside of" can make any literate
person's nails turn blue :-)
90% of people use informal speech. It makes them not look too
green and blue. ;-)
As in inexperienced and sad? I think not so. To me, emphatically
informal language written by educated people only shows their
carelessness and makes them seem lowbrow teenagers. It is quite appropriate and natural, however, in the verbal speech of those who
do not know better.
Futher more, informal language is more primitive than literate
language, has lower expressive power and weaker nuancing. Its
slipshod phraseology shows a disparaging attitude towards every
thing mentioned and every thought uttered. Consider, for example,
app vs. program or selfie vs. autoportrait.
I believe one should learn from the best rather than from the
worst, and therefore commend the best Russian writers: Pushkin,
Tolstoy (especially his later and shorter works), Leskov, Garshin
and more recent Soviet writers, e.g. Alexander Grin, Boris Pilnyak,
Andrey Platonov, Chingiz Aitmatov, Yuriy Kazakov. I don't know any talented writers in modern Russia, but am looking forward to
reading Dmitry Likhanov's "The Life of a White Bitch" (about a
dog). Have you read it already?
When a person is in a company of friends he never speaksCorrection: "should not" or "ought not to" (depending on
formally. And he should not to. It is too loathsome,
IMHO.
As for "inside/inside of" formally you are right, but
there are many opinions on this account. For instance:
[...]
http://tinyurl.com/yxacrj6f
IMHO, they are just new words. Like a flash mob, blog,
podcast etc. I don't like them, too.
But the main feature of informal speech, AIUI, is making
the talk more funny and humorous. It's like I see a
school boy and cite the Shakespeare' lines:
-----Beginning of the citation-----
...the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining moaning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school.
----- The end of the citation -----
No, last time I don't read much - I have problems with
my eyes. After work they are too tired. Before bed I can
read 15 minutes, maximum. And I read some old stuff.
Remember, for example, the dialogs in our screen
adaptation of Captain Blood (1991).
When she complained to my mother, my mother answered
"How would the doctor know if you were turning blue
with that stuff on?" :-))
When she complained to my mother, my mother answered "How would
the doctor know if you were turning blue with that stuff on?" :-)) <skipped>
In my previous message I neglected to say that when I added commas
to your example & Mark's I was "going by the book". The above is a departure from standard procedure, but I've learned a few things
since I attended school:
1) Although I wasn't happy when a USAian English professor
criticized me for using "too many commas"... and I may err in the
opposite direction now... I got the point. If I'd used commas as
they're generally used in British English there would be three of
them in my example, all serving different purposes. Once I became accustomed to the idea of rationing them I began to see how a
forest of commas may hinder some readers more than it helps. By
shortening the original sentence you made it unnecessary to
prioritize them & determine which one(s) may be omitted without sacrificing clarity. Sometimes that's the quickest & easiest
solution. OTOH I keep asking you about context, and thanks to Anton
I have more to add there... [chuckle].
2) My mother was speaking to a person who was emotionally upset.
I've found in certain situations that regardless of what the
textbook authors advise us to do in order to make our writing more interesting there may be times When it's highly effective to start
with a main clause & continue without pausing. In oral
conversation, not everybody takes turns politely & with some folks
it may be a bit of a challenge to get a word in edgewise. :-)
When a person is in a company of friends he never speaks formally.
And he should not to. It is too loathsome, IMHO.
Correction: "should not" or "ought not to" (depending on what you
mean).
Formal and informal are two poles with natural language somewhere
in between. Informal language need not mutilate words nor cripple
grammar. Remember, for example, the dialogs in our screen
adaptation of Captain Blood (1991). Do you find them loathsome?
As for "inside/inside of" formally you are right, but there are
many opinions on this account. For instance: [...]
http://tinyurl.com/yxacrj6f
There are more than one opinion on any matter, but there is no
logical justification of either "inside of" or "irregardless" (for
another example). They are mere uneducated distortions by people
who do not care about their language and culture and consequently
never ponder and wonder about the anatomy of words or their
functions in a sentence. But such people shall not decide the
evolution of the language.
IMHO, they are just new words. Like a flash mob, blog, podcast
etc. I don't like them, too.
Correction: I dislike them too, or I don't like them either.
But the main feature of informal speech, AIUI, is making the talk
more funny and humorous. It's like I see a school boy and cite the
Shakespeare' lines:
-----Beginning of the citation-----
...the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining moaning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school.
----- The end of the citation -----
Shakespeare is too difficult for me, who has read Tolkien,
E.R.Eddison, Poe, Lovecraft, and even John Bunyan. I feel no rhythm
in this fragment, but see nothing missing save an article
before "snail".
When a person is in a company of friends he never
speaks formally. And he should not to. It is too
loathsome, IMHO.
Correction: "should not" or "ought not to" (dependingIs it true, Ardith? Can I replace "speak" for "to"?
on what you mean).
Languages follow people, not textbooks. Textbooks follow
languages. ;-)
As for the article I have already discussed here the
similar case, when one prince returned home "smelling
like horse". In other words, English is not very strict.
;)
When a person is in a company of friends he never speaks
formally. And he should not to. It is too loathsome, IMHO.
Correction: "should not" or "ought not to" (depending on
what you mean).
Is it true, Ardith? Can I replace "speak" for "to"?
IMHO what he's suggesting is that if you don't want to
overuse the verb "speak" you could correctly say "he
should not (do so)" or "he ought not to (do so)". :-)
IMHO what he's suggesting is that if you don't want to
overuse the verb "speak" you could correctly say "he
should not (do so)" or "he ought not to (do so)". :-)
No, I proposed only the following amendment:
When a person is in a company of friends he never speaks
formally. And he should not, [or] And he ought not to.
and commented on the impropriety of using `to' in place of a verb
from the viewpoint of common sense and general logic. By the way, repetition is not always cacophonic[1]. It is even recognised as
a figure of speech!
Now that have read it again, I think that "the company" is much
better than "a company" (of friends).
____________________
1. as an antonym of `epiphonic'.
___
- Origin: nntps://fidonews.mine.nu - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/6.0) @EEN-BY: 1/120 18/0 116/116 123/0 25 50 150 755 135/300 138/146 153/250 757 @EEN-BY: 153/7715 154/10 203/0 221/1 6 360 261/38 280/5003 320/219 460/58 @EEN-BY: 640/1321 1384 712/848 3634/0 12 12 15 24 27 50
@ATH: 221/6 1 640/1384 3634/12 153/7715
Uh-huh. But you also gave another example... "I love
you better than I do myself"... in which the verb "do"
replaces the verb "love". Prior to that you & Alexander
had been discussing which words could be left out under
certain circumstances. I was trying to cover both at
once by using parentheses to show that the use of "do
so" or possibly "do that" is optional in my rendition.
:-)
Sorry, folks... operator error. I hadn't wuite
finished yet.... :-(
Looking forward to a copy ready for the typesetter!
When a person is in a company of friends he never speaks formally.
And he should not to. It is too loathsome, IMHO.
Correction: "should not" or "ought not to" (depending on what you
mean).
Is it true, Ardith? Can I replace "speak" for "to"?
I agree with Anton that "to" as you used it here doesn't work. IMHO
what he's suggesting is that if you don't want to overuse the
verb "speak" you could correctly say "he should not (do so)" or "he
ought not to (do so)".
No, I proposed only the following amendment:
When a person is in a company of friends he never speaks formally.
And he should not, [or] And he ought not to.
and commented on the impropriety of using!?! to' in place of a verb
from the viewpoint of common sense and general logic. By the way, repetition is not always cacophonic[1]. It is even recognised as a
figure of speech!
Now that have read it again, I think that "the company" is much
better than "a company" (of friends).
I meant something like this:
"Instead of which," I said, "in a month's time I take
the most important examination of my career."
"I should advise you not to." (Ch. Snow)
I.e. the main idea (I take the most important
examination) was replaced by "to", so that to be
shorter.
Languages follow people, not textbooks. Textbooks follow
languages. ;-)
It is not so simple. In order to improve a program, you must first
acquire a thorough understanding of its structure and working. The
same with language. Good books -- among which I rank Goold
Brown's "Grammar of English Grammars", Fowler's "King's English",
and even Emerson's essay on language -- enhance our command of
language and thus give us both the power and right to improve it.
The destiny of language shall not be left at the mercy of the
illitirate and the careless.
As for the article I have already discussed here the similar case,
when one prince returned home "smelling like horse". In other
words, English is not very strict. ;)
Not at all, and Dallas Hinton explained it well that in this
phrase!?! horse' is uncountable becauase denotes a substance. In Shakespeare, however,!?! snail' certainly refers to the whole
individual animal. Observe that Americans use!?! pie' uncountably,
too, e.g.: "We had tea and apple pie".
I meant something like this:
"Instead of which," I said, "in a month's time I take the most
important examination of my career."
"I should advise you not to." (Ch. Snow)
I. e. the main idea (I take the most important examination) was
replaced by "to", so that to be shorter.
"so as to be shorter." "so that" is a conjunction and requires a
dependent clause.
Your quotation is in perfect English, even with the classic first-
person "should". Nothing, however, was replaced in the answer, but
the verb phrase "take the most important examination of your
career" was simply omitted.
"So as" and "so that" are interchangeable. "So as" is
less common, however.
Your quotation is in perfect English, even with the
classic first-person "should". Nothing, however, was
replaced in the answer, but the verb phrase "take the
most important examination of your career" was simply
omitted.
As was "speaks" in my previous sentence with "to".
Horse is a substance? ;)
Not at all, and Dallas Hinton explained it well that in this
phrase!?! horse' is uncountable becauase denotes a substance. In
Shakespeare, however,!?! snail' certainly refers to the whole
individual animal. Observe that Americans use!?! pie' uncountably,
too, e.g.: "We had tea and apple pie".
Horse is a substance? ;)
the English language is a hodge-podge of words and phrases stolen from any other language that will hold still long enough to be robbed!
And then there is the KISS version. To say someone smells of horse
is a possible contraction of a statement: '...as if like a horse'.
Or, did I miss that one. :)
[...] you could correctly say "he should not (do so)"
or "he ought not to (do so)".
I meant something like this:
-----Beginning of the citation-----
"Instead of which," I said, "in a month's time I take
the most important examination of my career."
"I should advise you not to." (Ch. Snow)
----- The end of the citation -----
I.e. the main idea (I take the most important
examination) was replaced by "to"
Not at all, and Dallas Hinton explained it well that in this
phrase!?! horse' is uncountable becauase denotes a substance. In
Shakespeare, however,!?! snail' certainly refers to the whole
individual animal. Observe that Americans use!?! pie'
uncountably, too, e.g.: "We had tea and apple pie".
Horse is a substance? ;)
One of the problems here is that many nouns can be both countable
and uncountable, depending on context. To confuse things
further, "horse" is a street name for cocaine (or at least, used to
be -- dunno if that's still true!)
When we say "tea and apple pie", we actually mean "a cup of tea and
a piece of apple pie" (or perhaps several cups and pieces,
depending on greed, appetite, and the host's offerings!).
Now - "horse" in the powder form is uncountable (without a
microscope!) but can be measured in grams (or variants). In the
animal form, a herd of horses is confusing, because while the
number of horses in a herd can be counted but the word "herd" isn't usually. Nonetheless, we might talk about there being a number of
herds of wild horses in the US midWest... and we could count them.
I guess what I'm really saying is that we shouldn't get too hung up
on the concept of countable vs. noncountable -- do what makes sense
and remember that the English language is a hodge-podge of words
and phrases stolen from any other language that will hold still
long enough to be robbed!
Anton has told me that you told me that King Arthas
smelled like horse (without an article) because horse
was a substance. Did you tell it? I don't remember. ;)
In other words, "horse" is equivalent to "perfume". We
could say "smelled like skunk", "smelled like manure",
"smelled like perfume", and so on.
When we say "tea and apple pie", we actually mean "a cup
of tea and a piece of apple pie"
Anton has told me that you told me that King Arthas smelled like
horse (without an article) because horse was a substance. Did you
tell it? I don't remember. ;)
I should have quoted Dallas:
In other words, "horse" is equivalent to "perfume". We
could say "smelled like skunk", "smelled like manure",
"smelled like perfume", and so on.
By the way, I have no objections to "smelled of horse" but AS> am nothappy with "smelled like horse" and can't help but AS> want to insert an article after `like'.
When we say "tea and apple pie", we actually mean "a cup
of tea and a piece of apple pie"
Again, it is not "a piece of *an* apple pie", because `pie'
(as well as `pizza') is here more natural in its
uncountable, substantive form. A piece of apple pie is like
a glass of water, whereas I had eggs for my dinner and
bisquits and nuts with my after-dinner tea.
My mother answered, "How will the doctor know if you
are turning blue with that stuff on?"
But Ardith's grammar is immaculate and only right for
this hypothetical sitatuation,
whereas your use of "wanna" and "inside of" can make
any literate person's nails turn blue :-)
I hear the above in many popular songs from the US. I also note
with interest that our neighbours to the south tend to shorten the spelling of words like "cheque" and "neighbour", in an apparent
attempt to simplify the language. What I don't understand is the
tendency to leave out "of" in stock phrases like "a couple of" only
to add it where others wouldn't use it... e.g. "inside of" & "off
of". I have requested MODERN AMERICAN USAGE from the public
library. :-)
When I say "ain't nobody here but us chickens" in
response to a query from somebody who needs help in
deciding whether or not to abandon the XYZ echo as a
lost cause, I'm making a bit of friendly noise in a
jocular fashion to let them know I'm still reading the
echo even if I don't write very often.
I think Alexander knows I wouldn't recommend using
"ain't" or "wanna" on a grade twelve English exam... but
he's read widely enough to be aware of their existence.
I hear the above in many popular songs from the US.
I also note with interest that our neighbours to the
south tend to shorten the spelling of words like
"cheque" and "neighbour", in an apparent attempt to
simplify the language.
I have requested MODERN AMERICAN USAGE from the public
library. :-)
I also note with interest that our neighbours to the
south tend to shorten the spelling of words like
"cheque" and "neighbour", in an apparent attempt to
simplify the language.
Is "check and neighbor" a tendency to shorten?|different
It is just the American spelling which is differ
from the British/Canadian one.
I also note with interest that our neighbours to the south tend to
shorten the spelling of words like "cheque" and "neighbour", in an
apparent attempt to simplify the language.
Is "check and neighbor" a tendency to shorten?from the British/Canadian one.
It is just the American spelling which is different
Can you think of any [esp. US] spelling which requires more letters
than the [esp. UK/Can/Aus] equivalent? Offhand, I can't....
I have requested MODERN AMERICAN USAGE from the public|zealous ("zeal" + "-ous", rhymes with "jealous"
library. :-)
Make sure it is the original edition, because even the
most zelaus
descriptivists agree that later editors betrayed the
dead Fowler and ruined his dictionary.
But you can have some Fowler for free on Bartleby:
https://www.bartleby.com/116/
[King's English]
which, to me, has the advantage of being a coherent book
instead of a set of disjoined articles in alphabetical
order.
Some topics merely touched in MEU are expouned in great
deatail in "King's English". The chapter on "will" and
"shall" is a masterpiece (which I understood upon a fouth
re-reading :-).
The usage of "shall" and "will" and "should" and "would" by
Agatha Christie and Anthony Hope is now much clearer to me.
What I had in mind there was not FOWLER'S, but the work
of an author from the US. Because I don't speak US
English I saw little need for it until I became curious
about why Americans do what they do with, e.g., "of" and
thought I'd best consult a USAian expert.... :-)
Recently Dallas & I watched a series about Queen
Victoria in which the actress said (when HM was 8 1/2
months pregnant & was not allowed, by the standards of
the day, to do as she wished) said "I'm bored of this".
At a similar stage I was reminded of people who had
built a ship in the basement & wondered how they'd ever
get it out... and when I asked Dallas to help with the
vacuuming I got a new vacuum cleaner almost immediately.
But when I exclaimed, "What... Queen Victoria wouldn't
have said that!?" the 1998 edition of FOWLER'S confirmed
my suspicion that "bored of" emerged well over a century
later. :-))
Perhaps I should refresh my memory in that regard.
Although some of us probably learned about it at school,
North Americans in general don't make a distinction
between "will" and "shall". I think much of the power &
sublety of the language is lost when folks try too hard
to simplify or naturalize it. :-)
While I know very little about Anthony Hope, I think I
know what you mean WRT Agatha Christie. She could speak
volumes about a man by saying he was wearing spats &
riding in a first-class railway compartment... in much
the same way as the photograph I saw of her wearing
pearls while eating breakfast on the patio of her
country estate spoke volumes. When you understand the
fine points of grammar &/or the upper-middle class
customs of the day you'll understand far more than the
kids whose chief ambition is to fit in with their age
mates. :-Q
Then you might enjoy "The Witch" (or "The VVitch") -- a
splendidly depressing horror movie where the actors are
speaking the true English of the witch-hunting period in
New England.
I also note with interest that our neighbours to the
south tend to shorten the spelling of words like
"cheque" and "neighbour", in an apparent attempt to
simplify the language.
Is "check and neighbor" a tendency to shorten?
It is just the American spelling which is different
from the British/Canadian one.
Can you think of any [esp. US] spelling which requires
more letters than the [esp. UK/Can/Aus] equivalent?
Offhand, I can't....
I am not sure I understand. If they (Americans, your
south neighbours) shorten "neighbour" they got
"neighbor", the American spelling.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/neighbour
| Sysop: | Nelgin |
|---|---|
| Location: | Plano, TX |
| Users: | 513 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 01:13:29 |
| Calls: | 8,292 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,520 |
| Messages: | 928,946 |