Sorry -- totally apolitical and non-distracting
(the "example" angle is also great because it allows you to notice it but also appreciate the way it's being deployed)
(also in the case of something like "the average patient" up there, it can do handy work in communicating that maybe the average patient really is a woman -- you can suggest demographics and likelihoods this way)
― nabisco, Monday, 10 December 2007 20:24 (sixteen years ago) link
OK, this might seem ridiculous, and I'm convinced I'm right, but justify me how:
Referring casually to going round to the house of some aquaintances, I wrote "I went round to theirs"
Is that right? Common sense tells me that the place I refer to is the house belonging to them. Which would be "them's house" if shit like that made sense. Someone explain me how "theirs" is right? Is it just as simple as "theirs" means "that which belongs to them", or "them's", as it were?
Also, the word "theirs" looks really fucking odd written down, which doesn't help at all.
― ailsa, Monday, 10 December 2007 22:56 (sixteen years ago) link
That sentence does seem weird, but I can't tell if it actually is or whether it's just to my American eyes.
― jaymc, Monday, 10 December 2007 23:14 (sixteen years ago) link
Whose house was it? ==> Theirs -- that's the source, surely? Hahaha if you feel weird about it you could always try substituting "them lot's."
But I mean this is a Brit colloquialism where you're already omitting the thing and referring to it with a sidelong possessive -- trying to cut pure grammar in with this sounds like a losing battle to me
― nabisco, Monday, 10 December 2007 23:34 (sixteen years ago) link
please advise as to not stabbing out own eyes
― rrrobyn, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 20:32 (sixteen years ago) link
Right, that's what I thought (nabisco, not rrobyn) - it's one of those weird colloquialisms that defies grammatical explanation, isn't it? Which is why I was having my head done in with it when I asked it - I was trying to make grammatical sense of it and couldn't.
Though "whose house was it --> theirs" doesn't help, does it? That's what I was asking. It was the house belonging to them. Them's house = their house. So, yeah, their = possessive. So why theirs? Just one of those random things that makes English odd?
― ailsa, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 01:43 (sixteen years ago) link
yeah, fighting a losing battle. I know.
― ailsa, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 01:46 (sixteen years ago) link
Haha wait: are you getting tripped out by the fact that we use possessive pronouns, instead of saying stuff like them's, him's, you's, and us's?
― nabisco, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 03:23 (sixteen years ago) link
You are totally French
made it through afternoon with eyes intact but ugh nothing to contribute to grammar debates tho
― rrrobyn, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 05:31 (sixteen years ago) link
Ailsa, 'their' is a possessive adjective which (like any adjective) tells you something about the noun that it goes with. So "it's their house" tells you that the house belongs to them, in the same way that "it's a big house" tells you that the house is big, but you can't use those adjectives without the nouns (i.e. you can't say "it's their" or "it's a big"). 'Theirs' is a possessive prounoun, i.e. it's a noun which means 'the one which belongs to them', so it can be used on its own, but it would have to be clear from context what kind of thing you were talking about anyway. It sounds more natural to use the possessive pronoun when you're answering a question so that you can avoid repeating the noun that was in the question.
i.e. "Whose house is it?" -- "It's theirs/mine/his/hers/ours/yours" (sounds more natural than "It's their house/my house/his house/her house/our house/your house")
― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 11:45 (sixteen years ago) link
Which one is correct?
“Clearly, the smart thing would be to give him a portfolio of his own rather than let him play hopscotch.”
“Clearly, the smart thing would be to give him a portfolio of his own rather than letting him play hopscotch.”
― Jeb, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 19:52 (sixteen years ago) link
letting
― nabisco, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 19:53 (sixteen years ago) link
The first one might momentarily look right, because the mind will make parallels between "give him" and "let him." But it's not "give him," it's "to give him." They should both be nouns: "to give" uses the infinitive, "letting" uses a gerund.
― nabisco, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 19:56 (sixteen years ago) link
Ah, thanks, that’s exactly what I suspected. I got it from a reputable writer, which is why I was confused.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122001864.html
― Jeb, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 20:01 (sixteen years ago) link
Nabisco would appear to be correct in that the two items offered as "the smart thing" would also need to be things, aka nouns, from which it would follow that the gerund forms "giving" and "letting" are the proper constructions.
The original could also be read as "the smart thing to do", where the infinitive "to do" is implied, and this implication is made more explicit by subsequently using the infinitives "to give" and "to let".
In short, the only indefensible construction would be to mix the infinitive "to give" with the gerund "letting", or vice versa.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 20:06 (sixteen years ago) link
I'm not sure I follow why the mixing is indefensible, grammatically -- unless you just mean stylistically?
― nabisco, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 20:16 (sixteen years ago) link
Stylistically. The correct meaning can be derived from any of the mix-and-match possibilites without any genuine ambiguity being dragged in.
― Aimless, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 20:18 (sixteen years ago) link
how come 'the media' has become a singular noun?
― braveclub, Thursday, 10 January 2008 12:46 (sixteen years ago) link
It's a funny old game, son.
― Madchen, Thursday, 10 January 2008 13:18 (sixteen years ago) link
meanwhile...miami herald not outsourcing copyediting to india. yet.
― tipsy mothra, Tuesday, 15 January 2008 16:16 (sixteen years ago) link
from my friend kenneth
― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 16 January 2008 08:01 (sixteen years ago) link
god agh wtf i've come to the end of tolerating use of the word 'grow' as 'we will grow our business' etc business talk i hate you and can do nothing
― rrrobyn, Thursday, 17 January 2008 22:24 (sixteen years ago) link
i do not want to grow this bad mood
how can i grow bottle of beer into my hand is what i want to know
― rrrobyn, Thursday, 17 January 2008 22:26 (sixteen years ago) link
not permanently
^^^^^^^^^^^those four posts^^^^^^^^^^^
― G00blar, Thursday, 17 January 2008 22:29 (sixteen years ago) link
I used to have this great full-page mutual fund ad on my fridge with an old man saying something like, "Finally a mutual fund that focuses on what it's supposed to do - GROW MY MONEY"
― Hurting 2, Thursday, 17 January 2008 22:31 (sixteen years ago) link
"value proposition" is also a good one what does this even mean
― rrrobyn, Thursday, 17 January 2008 22:48 (sixteen years ago) link
ok i know what it means
but fuck it
I have a bad feeling that "grow" is going to end up like "access" until no one knows the difference anymore and people say things like "YOU ARE STANDNG IN THE WAY OF LANGUAGE, MAAAN, GET OUT THE WAY OF CHANGE YOU OLD BORING FOGEY" and I slink away and cry by self in a corner.
― Laurel, Thursday, 17 January 2008 22:50 (sixteen years ago) link
Right before I access that new spreadsheet.
― Laurel, Thursday, 17 January 2008 22:51 (sixteen years ago) link
How to play Edward Forty-Hands:
http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2000853/40hands_Full.jpg
well i do have a pair of lovers rock socks so i guess i'm qualified to just electrical tape 375ml bottles to my hands
wow i was kind of not in a good mood earlier i just ate some cookies but i still don't think that MBAs should be allowed to change the language i mean srsly it's like the most unimaginative people in the world trying to force their language on us when i don't know i'll take language change via 14-yr-olds talkikng on the internet anyday over that
― rrrobyn, Friday, 18 January 2008 01:25 (sixteen years ago) link
the new guy at the office, who is younger than me and has an MBA and w/o a doubt makes at least double what i make, freely admitted in conversation a couple weeks ago that he didn't really have a 'real' masters degree and i did. i laughed. on so many levels. honestly though, and i mean it, i don't feel any bitterness! the world is so weird and effed up but dwelling on that stuff doesn't exactly help me. also i would die if i had to do his job all day ugh. xpost to rich people thread.
of course i will be back soon enough to grammar grumble again
― rrrobyn, Friday, 18 January 2008 01:29 (sixteen years ago) link
I have a question about a crossword I'm working on, so those of you who do my crosswords may want to avert your eyes:
How would you define the phrase "wallow away"? I'm becoming paranoid that it's not a legitimate expression but rather a needless variant of "wallow."
But it sort of suggests wallowing over time, as in this sentence: "Phils take high school pitcher Blake Beavan, because even though there's better college prospects out there that could be up in maybe 2 years, they'd rather have him wallow away in the minors for 5 years and completely screw the kid up."
― jaymc, Monday, 4 February 2008 22:35 (sixteen years ago) link
The technical correct way to use that in the sentence is to do away with the word "away".
And according to my dictionary, the two definitions of the word is to roll around in mud or "take luxurious pleasure", none of which seems to go along with what the sports quote is trying to say.
By definition, "to wallow" sounds like fun. Making a kid play in the minors to "screw the kid up" doesn't really fit "luxurious pleasure".
― Pleasant Plains, Monday, 4 February 2008 22:50 (sixteen years ago) link
Yeah, that's what I was afraid of.
― jaymc, Monday, 4 February 2008 22:52 (sixteen years ago) link
I'm wondering if people who use "wallow away" mean either "while away" or "wither away."
― jaymc, Monday, 4 February 2008 22:53 (sixteen years ago) link
OK, "winnow away" works, right? I have no perspective on this anymore. Everything looks weird.
― jaymc, Monday, 4 February 2008 23:48 (sixteen years ago) link
I think "willow away" is more elegant.
― Alba, Monday, 4 February 2008 23:49 (sixteen years ago) link
Are you serious? That's not an actual expression, is it?
― jaymc, Monday, 4 February 2008 23:54 (sixteen years ago) link
wank away
― tipsy mothra, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 00:00 (sixteen years ago) link
I don't know that I've ever noticed "wallow away," except in the sense of, I dunno ... "you want to wallow? Fine, wallow away, but don't call me when etc. etc."
― nabisco, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 00:06 (sixteen years ago) link
Away often gets used to mean something like "to your heart's content," or "as best you're able."
"Hey, you feel like doodling in class? Doodle away! What do I care?"
Maybe trace it back to "fire away."
― contenderizer, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 00:07 (sixteen years ago) link
Same thing Nabisco is saying, I guess. Anyway, I think that's how "wallow away" is being used up there. Doesn't suggest to me that it's a distinct phrase you could reference in a crossword puzzle. No more than "a blue car."
Winnow away is nice.
― contenderizer, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 00:09 (sixteen years ago) link
Not only is it nice, it means I don't have to redo half the puzzle, just a few small tweaks.
― jaymc, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 00:11 (sixteen years ago) link
Across 1. "Fine, take luxurious pleasure to your heart's content"
― nabisco, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 00:26 (sixteen years ago) link
I'm having one of those moments when nothing sounds right and I seem to have lost my native tongue.
Is it correct to say "then the mandrel is slid into the tube" or "is slided"? The product is then shrunk in a furnace or "shrunken"? I don't have much freedom to completely reword it because I'm supposed to be using the same terminology as a previous translator.
― Maria :D, Friday, 8 February 2008 17:20 (sixteen years ago) link