|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 28, 2009 21:26:48 GMT
Hope you have enjoyed. Just sharing a bit of fun and making a play on words. Peter S. Thank you, Peter, for your interesting resume of English Grammar and language usage. But - let me share the 'fun' too. So, I'm pleased to disagree with only two of the items in your 'tale well told': Shakespeare ..... The natural flow of English is the quadrameter. He over-ruled it and created the Iambic pentameter. Shakespeare did not create the Iambic Pentameter. He (and others) imported it from Greek and Latin Classical Poetry and adapted it to suit the more natural rhythmical patterns of the English language. I like Grammar too, Peter, so here goes: Then of course there is the perennial grammatical howler in the title of 'Who's Who?'
Grammatically speaking that should be 'Who's Whom?' as in the colloquial expression 'Whom do we have here?' 'Who's who?' is grammatically correct, I believe, and I know of no grammatical justification for the alternative above. The Verb to be (unlike other Verbs) never has a Direct Object but instead may be followed by a Complement (as above). Hence, the Verb to be always takes a Nominative Case for both its Subject (the first 'Who') and for its Complement (the second 'who'). Other Verbs take an Accusative (Objective) Case for their Direct Objects (like 'Whom' with 'have' above). No! I didn't Google or Wiki it, Texassteve! I do have 'Nesfield's English Grammar' buried somewhere. But, perhaps, like good English, it likes its expertise to remain unnoticed. Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 28, 2009 22:19:17 GMT
Seriously, I don't think we are that far apart. Sorry, Texassteve. I didn't see your post (No. 40) until now. I agree fully with all you say in that post. By 'acceptable' I meant 'recognised (by reputable dictionaries) as common usage'. But, as you say, dictionaries constantly struggle to catch up with the natural developments in language usage. As I see it, 'issues' such as 'c' v. 's' or 's' v. 'z' , etc. are of little significance. Such 'issues' seem highly unlikely to inhibit effective expression or communication through language use. It seems natural too (and acceptable) to import words and spellings from other English dialects. Just as natural as using French (or Irish) words and expressions to complement or enhance the effective use of English. I'm not sure if that applies to 'text-speak' though. Paddy P.S. Do you really want two 's'es in 'texassteve'?  |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Mar 29, 2009 12:21:36 GMT
Hi Paddy, I love your last line which seems a good closure, for otherwise we will be off topic, unless we create a grammatical thread which I suspect may be a bore for most other people. Inclusivity is all, here, I think. To your points--and there are only two with which you disagree?  My reference was to Shakespeare's influence on English. As a printer I have to accept that we initially started setting type in Latin and therefore Latin influence was there first but its use in the English idiom was promoted by Shakespeare, the 'and others' can reasonably be forgotten, that's why they are 'and others'! :2fun: My comment was not meant to state the qudrameter was not iambic but that extending the length of line to pentamaters was promoted by Shakespeare, in English. As regards which falls naturally to English I think may be a matter of opinion and the 'naturalness' of the pentameter may reasonably be considered due to Shakespeare's influence. However, we have both boobed. Me, in the first place and you in not picking it up! :bat: It was your mention of Greek that suddenly hit me full in the face. I never got on with Greek, my bias has always been towards the Latin and your post caused me to run through my head the various options on poetic construction which I have not actively entertained for yonks. I should have used the Greek classification for four feet verse not the Latin as in Tetrameter!  Ooops! This conveniently reminds me of William Blake's arguably most famous poem 'Tyger, tyger, burning bright' which is an example of the trimeter (probably why I remember the poem). It was that which led me to the tetrameter. Oops, smack hand, "Pay attention in the back row there!" As for 'Who is Who?' or 'Who is whom?' while your analysis of grammatical construction as a text on grammar is unarguable, there remains in the back of my mind something about 'implied text not stated'. I would say we need to refer to an established authority. Now that leads me to a little humour--please Mods bear with me, it is directly related if slightly tangential. The tale is told (and believe it is not apocryphal) of two 'authorities' who were in disagreement about a definition. They decided they would accept the Encylopædia Britannica as their reference. Professor A took the volume off the shelf and read out the definition Professor B had stated. 'Ah, yes,' said Professor B, 'I thought that is what I wrote at the time! Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 29, 2009 15:45:42 GMT
Hi Paddy, I love your last line which seems a good closure, for otherwise we will be off topic, unless we create a grammatical thread which I suspect may be a bore for most other people. Inclusivity is all, here, I think. My reference was to Shakespeare's influence on English. As a printer I have to accept that we initially started setting type in Latin and therefore Latin influence was there first but its use in the English idiom was promoted by Shakespeare. My comment was not meant to state the quadrameter was not iambic but that extending the length of line to pentamaters was promoted by Shakespeare, in English. As regards which falls naturally to English I think may be a matter of opinion and the 'naturalness' of the pentameter may reasonably be considered due to Shakespeare's influence. However, we have both boobed. Me, in the first place and you in not picking it up! I should have used the Greek classification for four feet verse not the Latin as in Tetrameter! Ooops! This conveniently reminds me of William Blake's arguably most famous poem 'Tyger, tyger, burning bright' which is an example of the trimeter (probably why I remember the poem). It was that which led me to the tetrameter. Oops, smack hand, "Pay attention in the back row there!" As for 'Who is Who?' or 'Who is whom?' while your analysis of grammatical construction as a text on grammar is unarguable, there remains in the back of my mind something about 'implied text not stated'. I would say we need to refer to an established authority. Peter S. Peter, Peter, shining bright - such is Peter. (A Pentameter?) Of course - the development of the English language and literature owe much to Shakespeare's creativity. I implied nothing at all (in my previous post) about your 'Quadrameter' or its suitability to the English language (although I did presume that you meant the 'Tetrameter'). What I meant by Shakespeare's adapting the Iambic Pentameter 'to suit the natural rhythms of the English language' was as follows: (1) The 'Iambic' pattern of rhythm (a 'natural' speech rhythm) seems to occur frequently throughout spoken English and (hence?) seems to me a 'natural' trait of the English language; (2) Rhythm in English poetry is based on stress patterns (i.e. stressed and unstressed syllables), rather than on the lengths ( quantities) of syllables (i.e. long/short syllables), as in much Classical Greek and Latin poetry. So, since Shakespeare made his sonnet lines rhythmical rather than metrical, they seem to me to be more in tune with the natural rhythms of the English language (if you get my drift). As regards the grammar, let me rest my case with a question: Would you say, 'Who am I?' or 'Who am me' or 'Who is me?'? Of course, the grammatical point illustrated has fallen into widespread disuse (misuse?) in modern spoken English. But, in my view, common sense suggests that it's quite ok to use different language registers in their appropriate contexts, just as it seems good to speak French in France. Really, Peter, I'd say we have an audience of just two here! Who (whom?) started this discussion!  From now on, I think I'll try contemplating 'How Many Stars' in my avatar .... Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by grant on Mar 29, 2009 17:00:40 GMT
Really, Peter, I'd say we have an audience of just two here! Not at all Paddy, I've followed your discourse with interest ..... ......haven't understood a word of it but hey ...! Best wishes Grant |
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 29, 2009 18:55:59 GMT
Really, Peter, I'd say we have an audience of just two here! Not at all Paddy, I've followed your discourse with interest ..... ......haven't understood a word of it but hey ...! Best wishes Grant And I thought I was explaining things ever so well.  Perhaps it's a bit like 'poor' diction - one can be the last to notice what others hear clearly!  Thanks for the tolerance though. Good luck with your personal testament to Hayley. Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 30, 2009 0:40:49 GMT
Hey Mark Hi Steve Thanks for the great photos - the girls look great as usual. I knew about tis concert abd was all set to go up until a weeks or so ago and I couldnt make it at the last moment  Nevermind, you did us proud with the photos like you always do. Hope to see you at a Hayley concert sometime soon. Best wishes Mark Someone hasn't been reading the "Get It Off Your Chest" thread! Best wishes Grant Thanks Steve Great Photo's - I forgot all about this one!  Best wishes Grant Oooops again, Grant! The correct abbreviation for 'photographs' is 'photos', as in Mark's post. Yes! No apostrophe, as I hinted (oh so gently) to you below (in red): Members who don't check for typos before posting ! I agree! Glad to help. Paddy I really enjoy deflecting sniper fire ... |
|
|
|
Post by grant on Mar 30, 2009 8:51:10 GMT
Hi Paddy Oooops again, Grant! The correct abbreviation for 'photographs' is 'photos', as in Mark's post. Yes! No apostrophe, as I hinted (oh so gently) to you below (in red): OK, being serious for a moment. I was always taught that the apostrophe replaced missing letters, hence my using photo' graphs typo' graphical errors Why the difference between the above and the more obvious ones like haven't, don't etc.? Best wishes Grant |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Mar 30, 2009 9:55:39 GMT
A good closing response, Paddy, most amusing. You tempt me but I decline to rise to the bait, or we will bore everyone else with our traffic!
Peter S.
|
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Mar 30, 2009 10:00:48 GMT
Really, Peter, I'd say we have an audience of just two here! Not at all Paddy, I've followed your discourse with interest ..... ......haven't understood a word of it but hey ...! Best wishes Grant I love it Grant, I love it, superb contribution but I think we were right to end it when we did. Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 30, 2009 12:41:10 GMT
Hi Paddy Oooops again, Grant! The correct abbreviation for 'photographs' is 'photos', as in Mark's post. Yes! No apostrophe, as I hinted (oh so gently) to you below (in red): OK, being serious for a moment. I was always taught that the apostrophe replaced missing letters, hence my using photo' graphs typo' graphical errors Why the difference between the above and the more obvious ones like haven't, don't etc.? Best wishes Grant Hi Grant, Not altogether so.A brief answer - to avert any (unwarranted) application of (dismissive) labels! 'Rules' re abbreviations vary so much from context to context, so that, in effect, clarity and commonsense seem to be the only 'bottom lines'. So, why photos rather than photo's? In my view, clarity : photo's more usually seems to mean ' (the) photo is (lovely)' or ' (the) photo's (colour)'. So, to avoid confusion, commonsense says use 'photos' as short for 'photographs'. Paddy P.S. I confess that the purpose of my previous post was anything but grammatical. |
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 30, 2009 12:49:52 GMT
A good closing response, Paddy, most amusing. You tempt me but I decline to rise to the bait, or we will bore everyone else with our traffic! Peter S. Hi Peter, I'm glad you like your Pentameter - with the 'strange' third foot. I very much doubt if we can claim any monopoly on boring others. Anyway, I've always believed that 'boredom' was something in the mind, rather than in anything external. Paddy |
|
|
|
Post by gra7890 on Mar 30, 2009 18:54:22 GMT
Rules' re abbreviations vary so much from context to context, so that, in effect, clarity and commonsense seem to be the only 'bottom lines'. Hi Everyone, I have kept out of this one Up until now i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifGive me Mathematics any day i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif In Mathematics a rule is a rule ( no exceptions, or context, as it would not then be a rule ) . They can be logically derived. :2fun: These are different from a Conjecture or Hypothesis that may be true, and probably are true, but cannot be proved ( yet ! ) i.e If you do prove a conjecture you then become famous ( and rich ), e.g Andrew Wiles with the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem Best Wishes ( and now retreating to cover ) Graham |
|
|
|
Post by Paddy on Mar 30, 2009 20:05:10 GMT
'Rules' re abbreviations vary so much from context to context, so that, in effect, clarity and commonsense seem to be the only 'bottom lines'. Hi Everyone, I have kept out of this one Up until now i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifGive me Mathematics any day i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif In Mathematics a rule is a rule ( no exceptions, or context, as it would not then be a rule ) . They can be logically derived. These are different from a Conjecture or Hypothesis that may be true, and probably are true, but cannot be proved ( yet ! ) i.e If you do prove a conjecture you then become famous ( and rich ), e.g Andrew Wiles with the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem Best Wishes ( and now retreating to cover ) Graham But, but, Sir, doesn't Maths. start with Axioms? And aren't Axioms presumptions? 'Good to hear from you. Paddy P.S. I'm not retreating! |
|
|
|
Post by gra7890 on Mar 30, 2009 22:39:36 GMT
doesn't Maths. start with Axioms? And aren't Axioms presumptions? Hi Paddy, To quote Wikipedia.......... So yes axioms are presumptions so they cannot lead to Theorems or rules. i.e Not all Maths starts with axioms and what does cannot lead to a Theorem as it depends on the axiom that cannot be proved from another Mathematical source ..... i.e Mathematical rules are always true while Grammatical 'rules' depend on the circumstance. Which brings me back to ....... i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifGive me Mathematics any day i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gif ........... I know where I am Best Wishes, Graham |
|
Ooops! This conveniently reminds me of William Blake's arguably most famous poem 'Tyger, tyger, burning bright' which is an example of the trimeter (probably why I remember the poem). It was that which led me to the tetrameter. Oops, smack hand, "Pay attention in the back row there!"
Nevermind, you did us proud with the photos like you always do.
